« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to append11.html
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
append11.html
1
<html>
2
<head>
3
4
<title>Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2</title>
5
</head>
6
7
<body>
8
9
<h1><li>Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2</h1>
10
11
<a name="app1"><h2>1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.</h2>
12
13
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying
14
to claim that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the
15
so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often the
16
case with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.
17
<p>
18
In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?)
19
of his FAQ, Caplan writes that:
20
<p><blockquote>
21
<i>"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about
22
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
23
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
24
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
25
to maintain this claim."</i>
26
</blockquote><p>
27
He quotes Carl Landauer's <b>European Socialism: A History of Ideas
28
and Movements</b> as evidence:
29
<p><blockquote>
30
<i>"To be sure, there is a difference between
31
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
32
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
33
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists
34
also do not acknowledge any right to society to
35
force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic
36
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
37
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
38
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
39
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
40
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
41
property which is maintained through the power of the
42
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
43
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
44
individual independence, without fully answering the
45
question of how property could be maintained without
46
courts and police."</i>
47
</blockquote><p>
48
Caplan goes on to state that <i>"the interesting point is that before the
49
emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism Landauer found it necessary to
50
distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which he considered
51
to be within the broad socialist tradition."</i>
52
<p>
53
However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and
54
social anarchists agree that there <b>is</b> a difference between the two
55
schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course, Caplan tries
56
to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists
57
is somehow "evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly,
58
Landauer's book is about <b>European</b> Socialism. Individualist anarchism
59
was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly falls within the
60
book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on
61
<b>two</b> pages (one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not
62
a socialist? Of course not. It seems likely, therefore, that Landauer is
63
using the common Marxist terminology of defining Marxism as Socialism,
64
while calling other parts of the wider socialist movement by their
65
self-proclaimed names of anarchism, syndicalism and so on. Hardly
66
surprising that Kropotkin is hardly mentioned in a history of
67
"Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).
68
<p>
69
As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference
70
between their ideas. Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished
71
between two types of anarchism as well as two types of socialism. Thus
72
Caplan's <i>"interesting point"</i> is just a banality, a common fact which
73
anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history would know.
74
Kropotkin in his justly famous essay on Anarchism for <b>The Encyclopaedia
75
Britannica</b> <b>also</b> found it necessary to distinguish two strands of
76
anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims that only one of these strands
77
of anarchism is <i>"within the broad socialist tradition"</i> all we can say
78
is that both Kropotkin <b>and</b> Tucker considered their ideas and
79
movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. According
80
to an expert on Individualist Anarchism, Tucker <i>"looked upon anarchism
81
as a branch of the general socialist movement"</i> [James J. Martin, <b>Men
82
Against the State</b>, pp. 226-7]. Other writers on Individualist Anarchism
83
have noted the same fact (for example, Tucker <i>"definitely thought of
84
himself a socialist"</i> [William O. Reichart, <b>Partisans of Freedom: A
85
Study in American Anarchism</b>, p. 156]). As evidence of the anti-socialist
86
nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's interpretation of Landauer's
87
words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the writings of people like
88
Tucker you will see that they called themselves socialists and considered
89
themselves part of the wider socialist movement. No one familiar with
90
Tucker's works could overlook this fact.
91
<p>
92
Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that
93
he was <i>"the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists."</i> [p. 67]
94
Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon into the
95
"anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of Landauer
96
seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some
97
depth in his work within a chapter headed <i><b>"The three Anticapitalistic
98
Movements."</i></b> Indeed, he starts his discussion of Proudhon's ideas with
99
the words <i>"In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with Peter Joseph
100
Proudhon."</i> [p. 59] Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that
101
Individualist Anarchism followed Proudhon's economic and political
102
ideas the fact that Landauer states that Proudhon was a socialist
103
implies that Individualist Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist"
104
to use Caplan's term).
105
<p>
106
Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves
107
as followers of Proudhon's ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For
108
example, Tucker stated that his journal <b>Liberty</b> was <i>"brought into
109
existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon"</i> and
110
<i>"lives principally to spread them."</i> [cited by Paul Avrich in his
111
<i>"Introduction"</i> to <b>Proudhon and his <i>"Bank of the People"</i></b> by Charles
112
A. Dana]
113
<p>
114
Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist
115
Anarchism follows Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.
116
<p>
117
Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To
118
state the obvious, Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition
119
to <b>private</b> property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although
120
Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by
121
talking about possession as "property."
122
<p>
123
So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.
124
<p>
125
<a name="app2"><h2>2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?</h2>
126
<p>
127
Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In
128
section 7 (Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?) he states:
129
<p><blockquote>
130
<i>"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy
131
of government ownership of the means of production' -- it seems
132
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
133
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of
134
the strong restriction or abolition of private property,' then
135
the question becomes more complex."</i>
136
</blockquote><p>
137
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are
138
ignorant of socialist ideas! By definition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin
139
are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
140
were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued for its
141
abolition and its replacement with possession. The actual forms of
142
possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought, but
143
the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still there.
144
To quote Dana, in a pamphlet called <i>"a really intelligent, forceful,
145
and sympathetic account of mutual banking"</i> by Tucker, individualist
146
anarchists desire to <i>"destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of
147
property"</i> by mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, <b>Proudhon and his <i>"Bank
148
of the People"</i></b>, p. 46]
149
<p>
150
Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a
151
contradiction in Caplan's account. Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that
152
Proudhon had <i>"ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
153
property."</i> In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to
154
that of possession, as Caplan himself seems aware. In other words,
155
even taking his own definitions we find that Proudhon would be considered
156
a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, <i>"all accumulated capital
157
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner."</i> [<b>Selected
158
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings'
159
summary of the anarchist position on private property:
160
<p><blockquote>
161
<i>"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker],
162
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of
163
anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent
164
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege."</i>
165
</blockquote><p>
166
He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner <i>"agreed with
167
the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced
168
no more than the total product of individual labour."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>,
169
<b>Contemporary Political Ideologies</b>, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
170
(eds.), p. 132]
171
<p>
172
The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even
173
opposition to, or "abolition" of, all forms of property is not one
174
which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
175
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand the
176
identification of socialism as state ownership, as would Individualist
177
Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for opposition or
178
abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism,
179
such a position would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin
180
(and, obviously, such self-proclaimed socialists as Tucker and Labadie).
181
<p>
182
For example, in <b>Act for Yourselves</b> Kropotkin explicitly states that
183
a peasant <i>"who is in possession of just the amount of land he can
184
cultivate"</i> would not be expropriated in an anarchist revolution.
185
Similarly for the family <i>"inhabiting a house which affords them just
186
enough space . . . considered necessary for that number of people"</i> and
187
the artisan <i>"working with their own tools or handloom"</i> would be left
188
alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes the same point in <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>
189
[p. 61] Thus, like Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces <b>private property</b>
190
with <b>possession</b> as the former is <i>"theft"</i> (i.e. it allows exploitation,
191
which <i>"indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation"</i> namely <i>"to everything
192
that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product of
193
other's toil"</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 61])
194
<p>
195
Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the abolition
196
of all forms of "private property." Like anarchists, they distinguished
197
between that property which allows exploitation to occur and that which
198
did not. Looking at the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> we find them arguing that
199
the <i>"distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of
200
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property"</i> and that
201
<i>"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
202
society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate
203
the labour of others by means of such appropriation."</i> Moreover, they
204
correctly note that "property" has meant different things at different
205
times and that the <i>"abolition of existing property relations is not at
206
all a distinctive feature of Communism"</i> as <i>"[a]ll property relations in
207
the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent
208
upon the change in historical conditions."</i> As an example, they argue
209
that the French Revolution <i>"abolished feudal property in favour of
210
bourgeois property."</i> [<b>The Manifesto of the Communist Party</b>,
211
p.47, p. 49 and p. 47]
212
<p>
213
Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private
214
property" is <b>only</b> true for those kinds of property that are used
215
to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the anarchist
216
position when he wrote that anarchists <i>"are in favour of the private
217
property which cannot be used by one person to exploit another."</i>
218
[<b>Reinventing Anarchy</b>, p. 49] In other words, property which is
219
no longer truly <b>private</b> as it is used by those who do not own it.
220
In effect, the key point of Proudhon's <b>What is Property?</b>, namely
221
the difference between possession and property. Which means that
222
rather than desire the abolition of all forms of "private property,"
223
socialists (of all kinds, libertarian and authoritarian) desire the
224
abolition of a specific kind of property, namely that kind which
225
allows the exploitation and domination of others. To ignore this
226
distinction is to paint a very misleading picture of what socialism
227
stands for.
228
<p>
229
This leaves the <i>"the strong restriction . . . of private
230
property"</i> definition of socialism. Here Caplan is on stronger
231
ground. Unfortunately, by using that definition the Individualist
232
Anarchists, like the Social Anarchists, are included in socialist
233
camp, a conclusion he is trying to avoid. As <b>every</b> anarchist
234
shares Proudhon's analysis that <i>"property is theft"</i> and that
235
<b>possession</b> would be the basis of anarchism, it means that
236
every anarchist is a socialist (as Labadie always claimed).
237
This includes Tucker and the other Individualist Anarchists.
238
For example, Joseph Labadie stated that <i>"the two great
239
sub-divisions of Socialists"</i> (anarchists and State Socialists)
240
both <i>"agree that the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so
241
forth -- should not be held as private property and subject to
242
being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use
243
of these things shall be the only valid title, and that each
244
person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They
245
all agree that the present social system is one composed of a
246
class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is
247
impossible under such conditions."</i> [<b>What is Socialism?</b>] Tucker
248
himself argued that the anarchists' <i>"occupancy and use"</i> title
249
to land and other scare material would involve a change (and,
250
in effect, <i>"restriction"</i>) of current (i.e. capitalist) property
251
rights:
252
<p><blockquote>
253
<i>"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property
254
concerns only products. But anything is a product upon which human
255
labour has been expended. It should be stated, however, that in the
256
case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so
257
limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism
258
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual
259
occupancy and use."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 61]
260
</blockquote><p>
261
and so:
262
<blockquote><p>
263
<i>"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be put in
264
force until as a theory it has been accepted as generally . . .
265
seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of ordinary private
266
property."</i> [<b>Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax</b>]
267
</blockquote><p>
268
So, as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important
269
aspects of capitalist property rights. Given that the Individualist
270
Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still
271
the largest source of employment this position on land is much
272
more significant than it first appears. In effect, Tucker and
273
the other American Anarchists were advocating a <b>massive</b>
274
and <b>fundamental</b> change in property-rights, in the social
275
relationships they generated and in American society. This
276
is, in other words, a very <i>"strong restriction"</i> in capitalist
277
property rights (and it is <b>this</b> type of property Caplan
278
is referring to, rather than "property" in the abstract).
279
<p>
280
However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting"
281
private property is flawed as it does not really reflect
282
anarchist ideas on the subject. Anarchists, in effect,
283
reject the simplistic analysis that because a society (or
284
thinker) accepts "property" that it (or he/she) is capitalistic.
285
This is for two reasons. Firstly, the term "property" has
286
been used to describe a wide range of situations and institutions.
287
Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe a society in
288
which capitalist property rights were <b>not</b> enforced. Secondly,
289
and far more importantly, concentrating on "property" rights in
290
the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates.
291
Freedom is product of social interaction, not one of isolation.
292
This means that the social relationships generated in a given
293
society are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has
294
"property" or not. To look at "property" in the abstract is
295
to ignore people and the relationships they create between
296
each other. And it is these relationships which determine
297
whether they are free or not (and so exploited or not).
298
Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition" of
299
socialism avoids the central issue of freedom, of whether
300
a given society generates oppression and exploitation or
301
not. By looking at "property" Caplan ignores liberty, a
302
strange but unsurprising position for a self-proclaimed
303
"libertarian" to take.
304
<p>
305
Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking.
306
A <i>"traditional"</i> one of government ownership is hardly that and
307
the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while,
308
in its own way, includes <b>all</b> the anarchists in the socialist
309
camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did not intend).
310
<p>
311
So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our
312
discussion on property we can instantly reject Caplan's biased
313
and simplistic starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism
314
which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated
315
that <i>"the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer"</i>
316
(to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English socialist, from
317
his essay <b>Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital</b>). Tucker
318
stated that <i>"the bottom claim of Socialism"</i> was <i>"that labour
319
should be put in possession of its own,"</i> that <i>"the natural wage
320
of labour is its product"</i> (see his essay <b>State Socialism and
321
Anarchism</b>). This definition also found favour with Kropotkin
322
who stated that socialism <i>"in its wide, generic, and true
323
sense"</i> was an <i>"effort to <b>abolish</b> the exploitation of labour
324
by capital."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 169]
325
<p>
326
From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again
327
quote Kropotkin) <i>"the only guarantee not to by robbed of the
328
fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour."</i>
329
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 145] Because of this socialism also
330
could be defined as <i>"the workers shall own the means of production,"</i>
331
as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer,
332
and, in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most
333
socialists would agree with. The form of this ownership, however,
334
differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
335
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin
336
communal ownership, others like the Social Democrats state ownership
337
and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed in the 19th century, so
338
did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of this
339
process:
340
<p><blockquote>
341
<i>"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave
342
rise to a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the
343
artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives composed of
344
men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations
345
. . . For the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came
346
to mean the formation of a mass organisation that gave factory
347
workers the collective power to expropriate a plant that no
348
single worker could properly own. . . They advocated <b>public</b>
349
ownership of the means of production, whether by the state or
350
by the working class organised in trade unions."</i> [<b>The Third
351
Revolution</b>, vol. 2, p. 262]
352
</blockquote><p>
353
So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various
354
brands of anarchism. Individualist anarchism is clearly a form
355
of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while
356
communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial
357
(or proletarian) socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe).
358
Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as it does
359
artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and
360
co-operative associations for large-scale industry (which reflects
361
the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). The common
362
feature of all these forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and
363
the notion that <i>"workers shall own the means of production."</i> Or,
364
in Proudhon's words, <i>"abolition of the proletariat."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
365
p. 179] As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support
366
for <i>"association"</i> (or <i>"associative socialism"</i>) <i>"anticipated all
367
those later movements"</i> which demanded <i>"that the economy be
368
controlled neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . .
369
but by the producers"</i> such as <i>"the revolutionary syndicalists"</i>
370
and <i>"the students of 1968."</i> [K. Steven Vincent, <b>Pierre-Joseph
371
Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism</b>, p. 165]
372
<i>"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism,"</i>
373
to again quote Proudhon. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 167]
374
<p>
375
Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism
376
was based upon exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not
377
have access to the means of production and so had to sell themselves
378
to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing
379
that the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer and
380
opposing the exploitation of labour by capital. To use Tucker's own words:
381
<p><blockquote>
382
<i>"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon
383
the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of
384
the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something
385
that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much
386
opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege . . . every
387
man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What
388
Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to
389
deprive capital of its reward."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 404]
390
</blockquote><p>
391
By ending wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure <i>"The land to
392
the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The
393
product to the producer"</i> and so <i>"everyone [would] be a proprietor"</i>
394
and so there would be <i>"no more proletaires"</i> (in the words of Ernest
395
Lesigne, quoted favourably by Tucker as part of what he called a
396
<i>"summary exposition of Socialism from the standpoint of Anarchism"</i>
397
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 17, p. 16]). Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be
398
no more and <i>"the product [would go] to the producer."</i> The Individualist
399
Anarchists, as Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, <i>"expected a society
400
of largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
401
between any of them."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 104] In other
402
words, the <i>"abolition of the proletariat"</i> as desired by Proudhon.
403
<p>
404
Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure
405
the <i>"product to the producer"</i> and this meant workers owning and
406
controlling the means of production they used (<i>"no more proletaires"</i>).
407
He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual
408
banks and other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists
409
followed Proudhon, who <i>"would individualise and associate"</i> the productive
410
and distributive forces in society [as quoted by James J. Martin,
411
<b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 228]). Here is Kropotkin on Proudhon's
412
reformist mutualist-socialism:
413
<p><blockquote>
414
<i>"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property
415
is theft', he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense
416
of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand,
417
understood in the limited sense of <b>possession</b>, he saw the best
418
protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time
419
he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land,
420
dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to
421
<b>attain the same end</b> by rendering capital incapable of earning
422
interest."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlet's</b>, pp. 290-1 --
423
emphasis added]
424
<p></blockquote>
425
In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society
426
without capitalists and wage slaves (<i>"the same end"</i>) but achieved by
427
different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in 1846 he made the
428
same point:
429
<p><blockquote>
430
<i>"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against
431
Property in such a way as to create what you German socialists call
432
<b>community</b> and which for the moment I will only go so far as calling
433
<b>liberty</b> or <b>equality.</b>"</i> [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>,
434
p. 151]
435
</blockquote><p>
436
In other words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists (namely
437
to abolish capitalism, wage labour and exploitation) but disagreed with
438
the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed himself squarely in this
439
tradition and so could (and did) call himself a socialist. Little
440
wonder Joseph Labadie often said that <i>"All anarchists are socialists,
441
but not all socialists are anarchists."</i> That Caplan tries to ignore
442
this aspect of Individualist Anarchism in an attempt to co-opt it
443
into "anarcho"-capitalism indicates well that his FAQ is not an
444
objective or neutral work.
445
<p>
446
Caplan states that the <i>"United States has been an even more fertile
447
ground for individualist anarchism: during the 19th-century, such
448
figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker
449
gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom
450
of contract and private property."</i>
451
<p>
452
However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did <b>not</b> support private property
453
in the capitalist sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less
454
than Tucker and Spooner, supported free agreement between individuals and
455
groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more interested in the
456
words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings <b>they</b> attached
457
to them. Hardly convincing.
458
<p>
459
Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:
460
<p><blockquote>
461
<i>"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number
462
of different schools."</i> [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>,
463
p. 177]
464
</blockquote><p>
465
If he did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists
466
were a school of socialism, given their opposition to exploitation and
467
the desire to see its end via their political, economic and social
468
ideas.
469
<p>
470
<a name="app3"><h2>3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?</h2>
471
<p>
472
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best
473
to claim that Proudhon was not really a socialist at all. He states that
474
<i>"Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as a "left anarchist"]
475
although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
476
property would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."</i>
477
<p>
478
"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously
479
not -- Bakunin claimed that <i>"Proudhon was the master of us all."</i> According
480
to George Woodcock Kropotkin was one of Proudhon's <i>"confessed disciples."</i>
481
Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-capitalists? Obviously not.
482
What about Tucker? He called Proudhon <i>"the father of the Anarchistic
483
school of Socialism."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 381] And, as we noted
484
above, the socialist historian Carl Launder considered Proudhon a
485
socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his
486
<b>History of Socialist Thought</b> (and in fact called him one of the <i>"major
487
prophets of Socialism."</i>). What about Marx and Engels, surely they would
488
be able to say if he was a socialist or not? According to Engels,
489
Proudhon was <i>"the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."</i>
490
[Marx and Engels, <b>Selected Works</b>, p. 260]
491
<p>
492
In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems
493
to place Proudhon outside of the "leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp
494
is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of <b>The Third Revolution</b>
495
Bookchin argues that <i>"Proudhon was no socialist"</i> simply because
496
he favoured <i>"private property."</i> [p. 39] However, he does note the
497
<i>"one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist contract
498
from the capitalist contract"</i> namely <i>"it abjured profit and exploitation."</i>
499
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 40-41] -- which, of course, places him in the socialist
500
tradition (see <a href="append11.html#app2">last section</a>). Unfortunately, Bookchin fails to acknowledge
501
this or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along with
502
usury, which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see,
503
for example, the <b>General Idea of the Revolution</b>, p. 98, pp. 215-6
504
and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of capital as being
505
<i>"more wage slavery"</i> and, instead, urging whatever capital required
506
collective labour to be <i>"democratically organised workers'
507
associations"</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 62]).
508
<p>
509
Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that <i>"association"</i>
510
was <i>"a protest against the wage system"</i> which suggests that
511
Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian <i>"analysis minimised the
512
social relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry"</i>
513
[p. 180] is false. Given that wage labour is <b>the</b> unique social
514
relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works
515
that he did not "minimise" the social relations created by
516
capitalism, rather the opposite. Proudhon's opposition to wage
517
labour clearly shows that he focused on the <b>key</b> social relation
518
which capitalism creates -- namely the one of domination of the
519
worker by the capitalist.
520
<p>
521
Bookchin <b>does</b> mention that Proudhon was <i>"obliged in 1851, in
522
the wake of the associationist ferment of 1848 and after, to
523
acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
524
large-scale enterprises."</i> [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support
525
of industrial democracy pre-dates 1851 by some 11 years. He
526
stated in <b>What is Property?</b> that he <i>"preach[ed] emancipation
527
to the proletaires; association to the labourers"</i> and that
528
<i>"leaders"</i> within industry <i>"must be chosen from the labourers
529
by the labourers themselves."</i> [p. 137 and p. 414] It is
530
significant that the first work to call itself anarchist
531
opposed property along with the state, exploitation along with
532
oppression and supported self-management against hierarchical
533
relationships within production ("anarcho"-capitalists take
534
note!). Proudhon also called for <i>"democratically organised
535
workers' associations"</i> to run large-scale industry in his
536
1848 Election Manifesto. [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1,
537
p. 62] Given that Bookchin considers as <i>"authentic artisanal
538
socialists"</i> those who called for <b>collective</b> ownership
539
of the means of production, but <i>"exempted from collectivisation
540
the peasantry"</i> [p. 4] we have to conclude that Proudhon was
541
such an "authentic" artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one point
542
Bookchin mentions the <i>"individualistic artisanal socialism
543
of Proudhon"</i> [p. 258] which suggests a somewhat confused
544
approach to Proudhon's ideas!
545
<p>
546
In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike
547
Caplan, he should know better. Rather than not being a socialist,
548
Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin himself calls
549
<i>"artisanal socialism"</i> (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed,
550
he notes that Proudhon was its <i>"most famous advocate"</i> and
551
that <i>"nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even
552
[Robert] Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as
553
Proudhon -- essentially sought the equitable distribution of
554
property."</i> [p. 273] Given Proudhon's opposition to wage labour
555
and capitalist property and his support for industrial democracy
556
as an alternative, Bookchin's position is untenable -- he confuses
557
socialism with communism, rejecting as socialist all views which
558
are not communism (a position he shares with right-libertarians).
559
<p>
560
He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in <b>The
561
Spanish Anarchists</b> that:
562
<p><blockquote>
563
<i>"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen,
564
peasants, and collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate
565
and contract with each other to satisfy their material needs.
566
Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views
567
involve a break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded
568
as communist ideas. . ."</i> [p. 18]
569
</blockquote><p>
570
In contrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven
571
Vincent is correct to argue that, for Proudhon, justice <i>"applied
572
to the economy was associative socialism"</i> and so Proudhon is
573
squarely in the socialist camp [<b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
574
and the Rise of French Republican Socialism</b>, p. 228].
575
<p>
576
However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin,
577
who <b>is</b> wrong, at least some of the time). Perhaps they just did
578
not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated
579
<i>"I am socialist"</i> [<b>Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>,
580
p. 195] and described himself as a socialist many times this also
581
applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
582
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The
583
answer is no. To quote George Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas
584
on this subject we find:
585
<p><blockquote>
586
<i>"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to
587
exploit the labour of others, without an effort on his own part,
588
property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions
589
of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
590
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the
591
land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed
592
he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty."</i> [<i>"On Proudhon's
593
'What is Property?'"</i>, <b>The Raven</b> No. 31, pp. 208-9]
594
</blockquote><p>
595
George Crowder makes the same point:
596
<blockquote><p>
597
<i>"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . .
598
including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This
599
is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by
600
the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his
601
dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate
602
rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his
603
latter work he calls <b>this</b> 'property,' the conceptual distinction
604
remains the same."</i> [<b>Classical Anarchism</b>, pp. 85-86]
605
</blockquote><p>
606
Indeed, according to Proudhon himself, the <i>"accumulation of capital and
607
instrument is what the capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays
608
him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which causes the poverty of
609
the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
610
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation
611
of man by man."</i> [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 43]
612
<p>
613
He called his ideas on possession a <i>"third form of society, the synthesis
614
of communism and property"</i> and calls it <i>"liberty."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Reader</b>,
615
p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that property <i>"by its despotism and
616
encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
617
p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that <i>"all accumulated capital
618
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner."</i> Indeed, he
619
considered the aim of his economic reforms <i>"was to rescue the working
620
masses from capitalist exploitation."</i> [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
621
Proudhon</b>, p. 44, p. 80]
622
<p>
623
In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source
624
of exploitation and oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly contrasts
625
his ideas to that of capitalist property and <b>rejects</b> it as a means of
626
ensuring liberty.
627
<p>
628
Caplan goes on to claim that <i>"[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include
629
his defence of the right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine
630
antagonism between state power and property rights."</i>
631
<p>
632
However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that
633
possession is a source of independence within capitalism and so should be
634
supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:
635
<p><blockquote>
636
<i>"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the
637
fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only
638
the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy
639
(that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed
640
artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight a
641
contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"</i>[<b>Anarchism: Arguments
642
For and Against</b>, pp. 12-13]
643
</blockquote><p>
644
Malatesta makes the same point:
645
<blockquote><p>
646
<i>"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
647
private property by stating that property is the condition and
648
guarantee of liberty.
649
<p>
650
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is
651
slavery?
652
<p>
653
"But then why do we oppose them?
654
<p>
655
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
656
property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class of
657
the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the
658
property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that
659
workers are subjected to a kind of slavery."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>,
660
p. 113]
661
</blockquote><p>
662
As does Kropotkin:
663
<blockquote><p>
664
<i>"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour
665
is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really produces
666
most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his
667
occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
668
when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who
669
work like him, but bringing in little to idlers."</i> [<b>The Conquest
670
of Bread</b>, p. 145]
671
</blockquote><p>
672
Perhaps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really"
673
proto-"anarcho"-capitalists as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering
674
if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries to rewrite history
675
to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
676
socialism and whatever are actually like.
677
<p>
678
In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's <i>"emphasis on the genuine
679
antagonism between state power and property rights"</i> came from his later
680
writings, in which he argued that property rights were required to control
681
state power. In other words, this <i>"heterodoxy"</i> came from a period in which
682
Proudhon did not think that state could be abolished and so <i>"property is
683
the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State."</i> [<b>Selected
684
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 140] Of course, this "later"
685
Proudhon also acknowledged that property was <i>"an absolutism within an
686
absolutism,"</i> <i>"by nature autocratic"</i> and that its <i>"politics could be
687
summed up in a single word,"</i> namely <i>"exploitation."</i> [p. 141, p. 140,
688
p. 134]
689
<p>
690
Moreover, Proudhon argues that <i>"spread[ing] it more equally and
691
establish[ing] it more firmly in society"</i> is the means by which
692
"property"</i> <i>"becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on
693
an even keel."</i> [p. 133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property"
694
<b>as such</b> limiting the state, it is "property" divided equally
695
through society which is the key, without concentrations of
696
economic power and inequality which would result in exploitation
697
and oppression. Therefore, <i>"[s]imple justice. . . requires that
698
equal division of land shall not only operate at the outset. If
699
there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to
700
generation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 141, p. 133, p. 130].
701
<p>
702
Interestingly, one of Proudhon's <i>"other heterodoxies"</i> Caplan does not
703
mention is his belief that "property" was required not only to defend
704
people against the state, but also capitalism. He saw society dividing
705
into <i>"two classes, one of employed workers, the other of property-owners,
706
capitalists, entrepreneurs."</i> He thus recognised that capitalism was just
707
as oppressive as the state and that it assured <i>"the victory of the strong
708
over the weak, of those who property over those who own nothing."</i> [as quoted
709
by Alan Ritter, <b>The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 121]
710
Thus Proudhon's argument that <i>"property is liberty"</i> is directed not only
711
against the state, but also against social inequality and concentrations
712
of economic power and wealth.
713
<p>
714
Indeed, he considered that <i>"companies of capitalists"</i> were the <i>"exploiters
715
of the bodies and souls of their wage earners"</i> and an outrage on <i>"human
716
dignity and personality."</i> Instead of wage labour he thought that the
717
<i>"industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and
718
indivisible property of all the participant workers."</i> In other words,
719
self-management and workers' control. In this way there would be
720
<i>"no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
721
capital"</i> and the <i>"social republic"</i> established. Hence his support
722
for co-operatives:
723
<p><blockquote>
724
<i>"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests,
725
but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments,
726
which the first [French] revolution left undisturbed. Afterwards, when
727
they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of workers should
728
take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
729
inheritance."</i> [cited in <b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1,
730
and <b>Anarchism</b>, George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
731
</blockquote><p>
732
In other words, a <b>socialist</b> society as workers would no longer be
733
separated from the means of production and they would control their
734
own work (the <i>"abolition of the proletariat,"</i> to use Proudhon's
735
expression). This would mean recognising that <i>"the right to products
736
is exclusive - jus in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem"</i>
737
[cited by Woodcock, <b>Anarchism</b>, p. 96] which would lead to
738
self-management:
739
<p><blockquote>
740
<i>"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of
741
industrial democracy."</i> [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
742
Proudhon</b>, p. 63]
743
</blockquote><p>
744
As Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's <i>"picture of the ideal society of
745
the ideal society it is this predominance of the small proprietor, the
746
peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one"</i> with <i>"the creation
747
of co-operative associations for the running of factories and railways."</i>
748
[<i>"On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'"</i>, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 209, p. 210]
749
<p>
750
All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon
751
as "really" a capitalist all along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's
752
support for protectionism [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
753
Proudhon</b>, p. 187], the <i>"fixing after amicable discussion of a
754
<b>maximum</b> and <b>minimum</b> profit margin,"</i> <i>"the organising of regulating
755
societies"</i> and that mutualism would <i>"regulate the market"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
756
p. 70] and his obvious awareness of economic power and that capitalism
757
exploited and oppressed the wage-worker suggests that rather than
758
leading some to exclude Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether,
759
it is a case of excluding him utterly from the "rightist camp"
760
(i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism). Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim
761
(co-opt would be better) Proudhon for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates
762
how far Caplan will twist (or ignore) the evidence. As would quickly
763
become obvious when reading his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's
764
words) <i>"normally classify government, property, hierarchical
765
organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"</i>
766
<p>
767
To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite
768
anarchist and socialist history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead
769
for both wings of the anarchist movement and <b>What is Property?</b>
770
<i>"embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support
771
for revolution] all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or
772
implied: the conception of a free society united by association, of
773
workers controlling the means of production. . . [this book] remains
774
the foundation on which the whole edifice of nineteenth century
775
anarchist theory was to be constructed."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210]
776
<p>
777
Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism <i>"widely
778
developed and pushed to these, its final consequences."</i> [<b>Michael
779
Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 198]
780
<p>
781
<a name="app4"><h2>4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.</h2>
782
<p>
783
That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from <b>Instead
784
of A Book</b> or any of the books written about Tucker and his ideas.
785
That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has not looked
786
at either <b>Instead of a Book</b> or the secondary literature (with obvious
787
implications for the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore
788
these facts in favour of his own ideologically tainted version of
789
history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy and
790
objectivity of his FAQ).
791
<p>
792
Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as
793
follows in section 14 (What are the major debates between anarchists?
794
What are the recurring arguments?):
795
<p><blockquote>
796
<i>"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save
797
his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
798
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
799
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
800
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
801
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
802
all the possession by the labourer of his products."</i>
803
</blockquote><p>
804
You will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property <i>"the
805
possession of the labourer of his products."</i> However, Proudhon did include
806
in his definition of "property" the possession of the capital to steal
807
profits from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker
808
and Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property (<i>"the power of usury"</i>).
809
From Caplan's own evidence he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!
810
<p>
811
But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by <i>"usury"</i>:
812
<p><blockquote>
813
<i>"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses,
814
and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer."</i>
815
[cited in <b>Men against the State</b> by James J. Martin, p. 208]
816
</blockquote><p>
817
Which can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports
818
capitalism!
819
<p>
820
And we should note that Tucker considered both government and capital
821
oppressive. He argued that anarchism meant <i>"the restriction of power to
822
self and the abolition of power over others. Government makes itself felt
823
alike in country and in city, capital has its usurious grip on the farm
824
as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions and exactions of neither
825
government nor capital can be avoided by migration."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>,
826
p. 114]
827
<p>
828
And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps
829
Caplan should actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private
830
property before writing such nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's
831
ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it is interesting
832
that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating
833
that he does not know what socialism or anarchism actually is. To state
834
the obvious, you can be a hater of "communism" and still be a socialist!
835
<p>
836
So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon
837
were really capitalists by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.
838
<p>
839
He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist
840
is wrong because <i>"the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For
841
example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been
842
inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many
843
19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
844
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property
845
(merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate,
846
without opposing private property as such)."</i>
847
<p>
848
The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however,
849
are not "incorrect." It is Caplan's assumption that socialism is against
850
all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the obvious, socialism
851
does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists support the rights of
852
workers to own their own means of production if they do not wish to join
853
communist communes -- see above). Thus Proudhon was renown as the leading
854
French Socialist theorist when he was alive. His ideas were widely known
855
in the socialist movement and in many ways his economic theories were
856
similar to the ideas of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen
857
and William Thompson. As Kropotkin notes:
858
<p><blockquote>
859
<i>"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England,
860
in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist,
861
and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The
862
Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy,
863
1839)."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 291]
864
</blockquote><p>
865
Perhaps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?
866
<p>
867
Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated
868
that there were <i>"two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism
869
and Anarchism."</i> And stated in very clear terms that:
870
<p><blockquote>
871
<i>"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:
872
the prevalence on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity."</i> [<b>Instead of
873
a Book</b>, p. 363]
874
</blockquote><p>
875
And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and wage slavery)
876
and wished that <i>"there should be no more proletaires."</i> [see the essay <i>"State
877
Socialism and Anarchism"</i> in <b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 17]
878
<p>
879
Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject
880
of capitalism and private property. In section 13 (What moral justifications
881
have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:
882
<p><blockquote>
883
<i>"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
884
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
885
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
886
means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
887
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
888
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labour income
889
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
890
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
891
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
892
economic effect thereof would not actually occur."</i>
893
</blockquote><p>
894
Firstly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered
895
<b>profits</b> to be exploitative as well as interest and rent. Hence we
896
find Tucker arguing that a <i>"just distribution of the products of
897
labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except
898
labour. These sources may be summed up in one word, -- usury; and
899
the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent and profit."</i>
900
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 474] To ignore the fact that Tucker also
901
considered profit as exploitative seems strange, to say the least,
902
when presenting an account of his ideas.
903
<p>
904
Secondly, rather than it being <i>"unclear"</i> whether the end of usury
905
was <i>"merely a desirable side effect"</i> of anarchism, the opposite
906
is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would quickly see
907
that their politics were formulated with the express aim of ending
908
usury. Just one example from hundreds:
909
<p><blockquote>
910
<i>"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will
911
abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will
912
abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means
913
whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product."</i>
914
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 347]
915
</blockquote><p>
916
While it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would
917
result from the application of Tucker's ideas, it <b>is</b> distinctly
918
incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way
919
as a <i>"desirable side effect"</i> of them. Rather, in <b>their</b> eyes, the
920
end of usury was one of <b>the</b> aims of Individualist Anarchism, as
921
can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out in his excellent
922
account of Individualist Anarchism:
923
<p><blockquote>
924
<i>"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in
925
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of
926
equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least,
927
aware that existing conditions were far from ideal, that
928
the system itself worked against the majority of individuals
929
in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital,
930
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually
931
doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation. This the
932
anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system."</i> [<b>The
933
Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 102]
934
</blockquote><p>
935
This is part of the reason why they considered themselves
936
socialists and, equally as important, they were considered
937
socialists by <b>other</b> socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker.
938
The Individualist Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily
939
into Kropotkin's comments that <i>"the anarchists, in common
940
with all socialists. . . maintain that the now prevailing
941
system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist
942
production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly
943
which runs against both the principles of justice and the
944
dictates of utility."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>,
945
p. 285] Given that they considered profits as usury and
946
proposed <i>"occupancy and use"</i> in place of the prevailing
947
land ownership rights they are obviously socialists.
948
<p>
949
That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his
950
politics explains Tucker's 1911 postscript to his famous essay
951
<i>"State Socialism and Anarchism"</i> in which he argues that <i>"concentrated
952
capital"</i> <b>itself</b> was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued that
953
the <i>"trust is now a monster which. . . even the freest competition,
954
could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy."</i> While, in
955
an earlier period, big business <i>"needed the money monopoly for
956
its sustenance and its growth"</i> its size now ensured that it
957
<i>"sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no
958
longer a necessity. It can do without it."</i> This meant that the
959
way was now <i>"not so clear."</i> Indeed, he argued that the problem
960
of the trusts <i>"must be grappled with for a time solely by forces
961
political or revolutionary"</i> as the trust had moved beyond the
962
reach of <i>"economic forces"</i> simply due to the concentration of
963
resources in its hands. [<i>"Postscript"</i> to <b>State Socialism and
964
Anarchism</b>]
965
<p>
966
If the end of <i>"usury"</i> <b>was</b> considered a <i>"side-effect"</i> rather
967
than an objective, then the problems of the trusts and economic
968
inequality/power (<i>"enormous concentration of wealth"</i>) would
969
not have been an issue. That the fact of economic power <b>was</b>
970
obviously considered a hindrance to anarchy suggests the end
971
of usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in
972
the abstract could not achieve. Rather than take the
973
"anarcho"-capitalist position that massive inequality
974
did not affect "free competition" or individual liberty,
975
Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore, "free
976
competition" (and so the abolition of the public state)
977
in conditions of massive inequality would not create an
978
anarchist society.
979
<p>
980
By trying to relegate an aim to a <i>"side-effect,"</i> Caplan distorts
981
the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his comments on trusts, <i>"concentrated
982
capital"</i> and the <i>"enormous concentration of wealth"</i> indicates
983
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism
984
(which dismisses the question of economic power Tucker raises
985
out of hand). It also indicates the unity of political and
986
economic ideas, with Tucker being aware that without a suitable
987
economic basis individual freedom was meaningless. That an
988
economy (like capitalism) with massive inequalities in wealth
989
and so power was not such a basis is obvious from Tucker's comments.
990
<p>
991
Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly?
992
Private property, particularly in land! As he states <i>"Anarchism
993
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based upon
994
actual occupancy and use"</i> and that anarchism <i>"means the abolition
995
of landlordism and the annihilation of rent."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>,
996
p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a restriction on
997
"private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use
998
Caplan's definition of socialism, means that Tucker was obviously
999
part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In other words,
1000
Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while
1001
socialism (libertarian of course) would be the product of anarchy.
1002
<p>
1003
So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism
1004
is simply anti-government fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have
1005
distinct economic as well as political ideas and these cannot be parted
1006
without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's
1007
attempt to portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government
1008
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner
1009
also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure" anti-government
1010
anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows that his
1011
self-proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and, unsurprisingly,
1012
Tucker called himself a socialist and considered anarchism as part of
1013
the wider socialist movement.
1014
<p><blockquote>
1015
<i>"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'"</i> [William O.
1016
Reichart, <b>Partisans of Freedom: A Study in American Anarchism</b>,
1017
p. 157]
1018
<p></blockquote>
1019
<a name="app5"><h2>5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism</h2>
1020
<p>
1021
Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and
1022
Proudhon's "capitalism" by stating that:
1023
<p><blockquote>
1024
<i>"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
1025
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of 'anarchist.' In his
1026
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
1027
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were
1028
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
1029
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
1030
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
1031
Liberty.' Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
1032
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
1033
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
1034
including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
1035
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
1036
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"</i>
1037
</blockquote><p>
1038
There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to
1039
prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because
1040
while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement,
1041
Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In
1042
<b>State Socialism and Anarchism</b> he stated that anarchism was <i>"an ideal
1043
utterly inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call
1044
themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a regime of
1045
Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves."</i>
1046
[<i>"State Socialism and Anarchism"</i>, <b>Instead of a Book</b>, pp. 15-16]
1047
<p>
1048
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon
1049
or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters
1050
of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a <b>political</b> movement
1051
(as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist
1052
and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In
1053
other words, anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated
1054
with specific political <b>and</b> economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin
1055
defined their anarchism as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To
1056
quote Tucker on the subject:
1057
<p><blockquote>
1058
<i>"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition
1059
of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation
1060
of man by man."</i> [cited in <b>Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
1061
American Individualism</b> by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
1062
</blockquote><p>
1063
Kropotkin defined anarchism as <i>"the no-government system of socialism."</i>
1064
[<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 46] Malatesta argued that
1065
<i>"when [people] sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it
1066
was anarchy was born"</i> and, like Tucker, aimed for <i>"the complete
1067
destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man."</i>
1068
[<b>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 19, pp. 22-28] Indeed <b>every</b> leading anarchist
1069
theorist defined anarchism as opposition to government <b>and</b>
1070
exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent summary:
1071
<p><blockquote>
1072
<i>"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of
1073
politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil,
1074
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
1075
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way
1076
anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, for example], and
1077
partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism
1078
from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
1079
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character
1080
of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has
1081
never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
1082
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally
1083
critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state."</i>
1084
[<i>"Anthropology and Anarchism,"</i> <b>Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
1085
Armed</b> no. 45, p. 40]
1086
</blockquote><p>
1087
Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always
1088
combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to exploitation.
1089
Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism have declared
1090
themselves "socialist" and so it is <i>"conceptually and historically
1091
misleading"</i> to <i>"create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism."</i>
1092
[Brian Morris, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 39] Needless to say, anarchists oppose
1093
<b>state</b> socialism just as much as they oppose capitalism. All of
1094
which means that anarchism and capitalism are two <b>different</b>
1095
political ideas with specific (and opposed) meanings -- to deny
1096
these meanings by uniting the two terms creates an oxymoron, one
1097
that denies the history and the development of ideas as well
1098
as the whole history of the anarchist movement itself.
1099
<p>
1100
As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but
1101
not a communist) it is hardly surprising that he mentions him. Again,
1102
Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a "right-wing"
1103
anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending
1104
individualist anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of
1105
capitalism! That in itself should be enough to indicate Caplan's attempt
1106
to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-option of
1107
Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.
1108
<p>
1109
Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins.
1110
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:
1111
<p><blockquote>
1112
<i>"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
1113
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
1114
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
1115
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
1116
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
1117
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
1118
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
1119
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption,
1120
but overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
1121
common with anarcho-capitalists than with left-anarchists.)"</i>
1122
</blockquote><p>
1123
Firstly, as he states, Tucker and Spooner have been <i>"adopted"</i> by the
1124
"anarcho"-capitalist school. Being dead they have little chance to
1125
protest such an adoption, but it is clear that they considered themselves
1126
as socialists, against capitalism (it may be claimed that Spooner never
1127
called himself a socialist, but then again he never called himself an
1128
anarchist either; it is his strong opposition to wage labour that places
1129
him in the socialist camp). Secondly, Caplan lets the cat out the bag by
1130
noting that this "adoption" involved a few warnings - more specifically,
1131
the attempt to rubbish or ignore the underlying socio-economic ideas of
1132
Tucker and Spooner and the obvious anti-capitalist nature of their
1133
vision of a free society.
1134
<p>
1135
Individualist anarchists are, indeed, more similar to classical liberals
1136
than social anarchists. Similarly, social anarchists are more similar to
1137
Marxists than Individualist anarchists. But neither statement means that
1138
Individualist anarchists are capitalists, or social anarchists are state
1139
socialists. It just means some of their ideas overlap -- and we must point
1140
out that Individualist anarchist ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and
1141
social anarchist ones with liberal ones (indeed, one interesting
1142
overlap between Marxism and Individualist Anarchism can be seen from
1143
Marx's comment that abolishing interest and interest-bearing capital
1144
<i>"means the abolition of capital and of capitalist production itself."</i>
1145
[<b>Theories of Surplus Value</b>, vol. 3, p. 472] Given that Individualist
1146
Anarchism aimed to abolish interest (along with rent and profit) it
1147
would suggest, from a Marxist position, that it is a socialist theory).
1148
<p>
1149
So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism
1150
ideas are <i>"partly those of Proudhon, but party those of Herbert
1151
Spencer"</i> [<b>Kropotkins' Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 173], what
1152
the "anarcho"-capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the
1153
Proudhonian (i.e. socialist) aspect of their theories. However,
1154
that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was not an anarchist, but a
1155
right-wing Libertarian, a supporter of capitalism (a <i>"champion of
1156
the capitalistic class"</i> as Tucker put it). In other words, to
1157
ignore the socialist aspect of Individualist Anarchism (or
1158
anarchism in general) is to reduce it to liberalism, an extreme
1159
version of liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless -- and liberalism
1160
is not anarchism. To reduce anarchism so is to destroy what makes
1161
anarchism a unique political theory and movement:
1162
<p><blockquote>
1163
<i>"anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both
1164
historically and ideologically . . . In a sense, anarchists
1165
always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject
1166
what is good in either they betray anarchism itself . . . We are
1167
liberals but more so, and socialists but more so."</i> [Nicholas Walter,
1168
<b>Reinventing Anarchy</b>, p. 44]
1169
</blockquote><p>
1170
In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas
1171
which have little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in
1172
his overview of anarchist theory and history, agrees:
1173
<p>
1174
<blockquote><i>"It is hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] --
1175
with roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist
1176
only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."</i>
1177
[<b>Contemporary Political Ideologies</b>, Roger Eatwell and Anthony
1178
Wright (eds.), p. 142]
1179
</blockquote><p>
1180
Barbara Goodwin also agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' <i>"true
1181
place is in the group of right-wing libertarians"</i> not in anarchism
1182
[<b>Using Political Ideas</b>, p. 148]. Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism
1183
is an off-shoot of classical liberalism is a position Murray Rothbard
1184
would agree with, as he states that right-wing Libertarians constitute
1185
<i>"the vanguard of classical liberalism."</i> [quoted by Ulrike Heider,
1186
<b>Anarchism: Left, Right and Green</b>, p. 95] Unfortunately for this
1187
perspective anarchism is not liberalism and liberalism is not anarchism.
1188
And equally as unfortunate (this time for the anarchist movement!)
1189
"anarcho"-capitalism <i>"is judged to be anarchism largely because some
1190
anarcho-capitalists <b>say</b> they are 'anarchists' and because they
1191
criticise the State."</i> [Peter Sabatini, <b>Social Anarchism</b>, no. 23,
1192
p. 100] However, being opposed to the state is a necessary but not
1193
sufficient condition for being an anarchist (as can be seen from the
1194
history of the anarchist movement). Brian Morris puts it well when
1195
he writes:
1196
<p><blockquote>
1197
<i>"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
1198
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
1199
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination.
1200
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
1201
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
1202
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
1203
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
1204
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
1205
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
1206
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
1207
of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians
1208
. . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who
1209
fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists."</i>
1210
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 38]
1211
</blockquote><p>
1212
Rather than call themselves by a name which reflects their origins
1213
in liberalism (and <b>not</b> anarchism), the "anarcho"-capitalists have
1214
instead seen fit to try and appropriate the name of anarchism and,
1215
in order to do so, ignore key aspects of anarchist theory in the
1216
process. Little wonder, then, they try and prove their anarchist
1217
credentials via dictionary definitions rather than from the
1218
anarchist movement itself (see <a href="append11.html#app6">next section</a>).
1219
b'<p>'
1220
Caplan's attempt in his FAQ is an example to ignore individualist
1221
anarchist theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand
1222
their ideas on property and instead Caplan just concentrates on the
1223
fact they use the word. Caplan also ignores:
1224
<p><blockquote>
1225
<li> their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider socialist
1226
movement.
1227
<p>
1228
<li> their opposition to capitalist property-rights in land and other scarce
1229
resources.
1230
<p>
1231
<li> their recognition that capitalism was based on usury and that it was
1232
exploitation.
1233
<p>
1234
<li> their attacks on government <b>and</b> capital, rather than just government.
1235
<p>
1236
<li> their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
1237
secure the full product of their labour.
1238
</blockquote><p>
1239
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
1240
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also agreed
1241
with) and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory investigation
1242
indicates the non-capitalist nature of their ideas on property and
1243
the socialistic nature of their theories.
1244
<p>
1245
Perhaps Caplan should ponder these words of Kropotkin supporters of the
1246
<i>"individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians . . . soon realise
1247
that the individualisation they so highly praise is not attainable by
1248
individual efforts, and . . . abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and
1249
are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist."</i>
1250
[<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 297]
1251
<p>
1252
Caplan seems to confuse the end of the ending place of ex-anarchists
1253
with their starting point. As can be seen from his attempt to co-opt
1254
Proudhon, Spooner and Tucker he has to ignore their ideas and rewrite
1255
history.
1256
<p>
1257
<a name="app6"><h2>6 - Appendix: Defining Anarchism</h2>
1258
<p>
1259
In his Appendix <i>"Defining Anarchism"</i> we find that Caplan attempts
1260
to defend his dictionary definition of anarchism. He does this
1261
by attempting to refute two arguments, The Philological Argument
1262
and the Historical Argument.
1263
<p>
1264
Taking each in turn we find:
1265
<p>
1266
Caplan's definition of <i>"The Philological Argument"</i> is as follows:
1267
<p><blockquote>
1268
<i>"Several critics have noted the origin of the term 'anarchy,' which
1269
derives from the Greek 'arkhos,' meaning 'ruler,' and the prefix an-,'
1270
meaning 'without.' It is therefore suggested that in my definition the
1271
word 'government' should be replaced with the word 'domination' or
1272
'rulership'; thus re-written, it would then read: 'The theory or
1273
doctrine that all forms of rulership are unnecessary, oppressive,
1274
and undesirable and should be abolished.'"</i>
1275
</blockquote><p>
1276
Caplan replies by stating that:
1277
<p><blockquote>
1278
<i>"This is all good and well, so long as we realise that various groups of
1279
anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance
1280
of 'rulership.'"</i>
1281
</blockquote><p>
1282
However, in order to refute this argument by this method, he has
1283
to ignore his own methodology. A dictionary definition of ruler is
1284
<i>"a person who rules by authority."</i> and <i>"rule"</i> is defined as <i>"to
1285
have authoritative control over people"</i> or <i>"to keep (a person or
1286
feeling etc.) under control, to dominate"</i> [<b>The Oxford Study Dictionary</b>]
1287
<p>
1288
Hierarchy by its very nature is a form of rulership (hier-<b><i>archy</i></b>)
1289
and is so opposed by anarchists. Capitalism is based upon wage labour,
1290
in which a worker follows the rules of their boss. This is obviously a
1291
form of hierarchy, of domination. Almost all people (excluding die-hard
1292
supporters of capitalism) would agree that being told what to do, when
1293
to do and how to do by a boss is a form of rulership. Anarchists,
1294
therefore, argue that <i>"economic exploitation and political domination
1295
. . . [are] two continually interacting aspects of the same thing --
1296
the subjection of man by man."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Life and Ideas</b>,
1297
p. 147] Rocker made the same point, arguing that the <i>"exploitation
1298
of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable,
1299
and each is the condition of the other."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>,
1300
p. 18]
1301
<p>
1302
Thus Caplan is ignoring the meaning of words to state that <i>"on its own
1303
terms this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists"</i> because they
1304
define rulership to exclude most forms of archy! Hardly convincing.
1305
<p>
1306
Strangely enough, "anarcho"-capitalist icon Murray Rothbard actually
1307
provides evidence that the anarchist position <b>is</b> correct. He argues
1308
that the state <i>"arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate
1309
decision-making power, over a given area territorial area."</i> [<b>The
1310
Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 170] This is obviously a form of rulership.
1311
However, he also argues that <i>"[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith
1312
has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property,
1313
Jones over his, etc."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 173] Which, to state the obvious,
1314
means that <b>both</b> the state and property is marked by an <i>"ultimate
1315
decision-making power"</i> over a given territory. The only "difference"
1316
is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly" acquired)
1317
and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force). In reality
1318
of course, the modern distribution of property is just as much a product
1319
of past force as is the modern state. In other words, the current
1320
property owners have acquired their property in the same unjust
1321
fashion as the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other.
1322
Rothbard (and "anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have
1323
it both ways.
1324
<p>
1325
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
1326
essentially the same thing:
1327
<p><blockquote>
1328
<i>"If the State may be said too properly own its territory, then it
1329
is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in
1330
that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property
1331
because there is no private property in its area, because it really
1332
owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects
1333
to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other
1334
owner who sets down rules for people living on his property."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1335
p. 170]
1336
</blockquote><p>
1337
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants to
1338
maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
1339
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
1340
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According
1341
to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the <i>"ultimate
1342
decision-making power"</i> over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
1343
<i>"make rules for everyone"</i> who lives in an area, i.e. govern them)
1344
but not be a state. This not a viable position for obvious reasons.
1345
<p>
1346
Thus to claim, as Caplan does, that property does not generate
1347
"rulership" is obviously nonsense. Not only does it ignore the
1348
dictionary definition of rulership (which, let us not forget, is
1349
Caplan's <b>own</b> methodology) as well as commonsense, it obviously
1350
ignores what the two institutions have in common. <b>If</b> the state
1351
is to be condemned as "rulership" then so must property -- for
1352
reasons, ironically enough, Rothbard makes clear!
1353
<p>
1354
Caplan's critique of the <i>"Philological Argument"</i> fails because he
1355
tries to deny that the social relationship between worker and
1356
capitalist and tenant and landlord is based upon <b>archy,</b> when
1357
it obviously is. To quote Proudhon, considered by Tucker as <i>"the
1358
Anarchist <b>par excellence,</b>"</i> the employee <i>"is subordinated,
1359
exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience."</i> Without
1360
<i>"association"</i> (i.e. co-operative workplaces, workers' self-management)
1361
there would be <i>"two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers
1362
which is repugnant to a free and democratic society,"</i> castes
1363
<i>"related as subordinates and superiors."</i> [<b>The General Idea of
1364
the Revolution</b>, p. 216]
1365
<p>
1366
Moving on, Caplan defines the Historical Argument as:
1367
<p><blockquote>
1368
<i>"A second popular argument states that historically, the term 'anarchism'
1369
has been clearly linked with anarcho-socialists, anarcho-communists,
1370
anarcho-syndicalists, and other enemies of the capitalist system. Hence,
1371
the term 'anarcho-capitalism' is a strange oxymoron which only demonstrates
1372
ignorance of the anarchist tradition."</i>
1373
</blockquote><p>
1374
He argues that <i>"even if we were to accept the premise of this argument --
1375
to wit, that the meaning of a word is somehow determined by its historical
1376
usage -- the conclusion would not follow because the minor premise is wrong.
1377
It is simply not true that from its earliest history, all anarchists were
1378
opponents of private property, free markets, and so on."</i>
1379
<p>
1380
Firstly, anarchism is not just a word, but a political idea and movement
1381
and so the word used in a political context is associated with a given
1382
body of ideas. You cannot use the word to describe something which has
1383
little or nothing in common with that body of ideas. You cannot call
1384
Marxism "anarchism" simply because they share the anarchist opposition
1385
to capitalist exploitation and aim for a stateless society, for example.
1386
<p>
1387
Secondly, it is true that anarchists like Tucker were not against the
1388
free market, but they did not consider capitalism to be defined by the
1389
free market but by exploitation and wage labour (as do all socialists).
1390
In this they share a common ground with Market Socialists who, like
1391
Tucker and Proudhon, do not equate socialism with opposition to the
1392
market or capitalism with the "free market." The idea that socialists
1393
oppose <i>"private property, free markets, and so on"</i> is just an assumption
1394
by Caplan. Proudhon, for example, was not opposed to competition,
1395
"property" (in the sense of possession) and markets but during his
1396
lifetime and up to the present date he is acknowledged as a socialist,
1397
indeed one of the greatest in French (if not European) history. Similarly
1398
we find Rudolf Rocker writing that the Individualist Anarchists <i>"all
1399
agree on the point that man be given the full reward of his labour and
1400
recognised in this right the economic basis of all personal liberty.
1401
They regard free competition . . . as something inherent in human
1402
nature . . . They answered the <b>socialists of other schools</b> [emphasis
1403
added] who saw in <b>free competition</b> one of the destructive elements
1404
of capitalistic society that the evil lies in the fact that today we
1405
have too little rather than too much competition."</i> [quoted by Herbert
1406
Read, <b>A One-Man Manifesto</b>, p. 147] Rocker obviously considered
1407
support for free markets as compatible with socialism. In other
1408
words, Caplan's assumption that all socialists oppose free markets,
1409
competition and so on is simply false -- as can be seen from the
1410
history of the socialist movement. What socialists <b>do</b> oppose is
1411
capitalist exploitation -- socialism <i>"in its wide, generic, and true
1412
sense"</i> was an <i>"effort to <b>abolish</b> the exploitation of labour by
1413
capital."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>,
1414
p. 169] In this sense the Individualist Anarchists are obviously
1415
socialists, as Tucker and Labadie constantly pointed out.
1416
<p>
1417
In addition, as we have proved elsewhere, Tucker was opposed to
1418
capitalist private property just as much as Kropotkin was. Moreover,
1419
it is clear from Tucker's works that he considered himself an enemy
1420
of the capitalist system and called himself a socialist. Thus Caplan's
1421
attempt to judge the historical argument on its own merits fails because
1422
he has to rewrite history to do so.
1423
<p>
1424
Caplan is right to state that the meaning of words change over time, but
1425
this does not mean we should run to use dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
1426
rarely express political ideas well - for example, most dictionaries define
1427
the word "anarchy" as "chaos" and "disorder." Does that mean anarchists aim
1428
to create chaos? Of course not. Therefore, Caplan's attempt to use dictionary
1429
definitions is selective and ultimately useless - anarchism as a political
1430
movement cannot be expressed by dictionary definitions and any attempt
1431
to do so means to ignore history.
1432
<p>
1433
The problems in using dictionary definitions to describe political ideas
1434
can best be seen from the definition of the word "Socialism." According
1435
to the <b>Oxford Study Dictionary</b> Socialism is <i>"a political and economic
1436
theory advocating that land, resources, and the chief industries should
1437
be owned and managed by the State."</i> The <b>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary</b>, conversely, defines socialism as <i>"any of various economic
1438
and political theories advocating collective or government ownership
1439
and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."</i>
1440
<p>
1441
Clearly the latter source has a more accurate definition of socialism than
1442
the former, by allowing for "collective" versus solely "State" control of
1443
productive means. Which definition would be better? It depends on the
1444
person involved. A Marxist, for example, could prefer the first one
1445
simply to exclude anarchism from the socialist movement, something they
1446
have continually tried to do. A right-libertarian could, again, prefer
1447
the first, for obvious reasons. Anarchists would prefer the second, again
1448
for obvious reasons. However neither definition does justice to the
1449
wide range of ideas that have described themselves as socialist.
1450
<p>
1451
Using dictionaries as the basis of defining political movements ensures
1452
that one's views depend on <b>which</b> dictionary one uses, and <b>when</b> it was
1453
written, and so on. This is why they are not the best means of resolving
1454
disputes -- if resolution of disputes is, in fact, your goal.
1455
<p>
1456
Both Kropotkin and Tucker stated that they were socialists and that
1457
anarchism was socialistic. If we take the common modern meaning of the
1458
word as state ownership as the valid one then Tucker and Kropotkin are
1459
<b>not</b> socialists and no form of anarchism is socialist. This is obviously
1460
nonsense and it shows the limitations of using dictionary definitions on
1461
political theories.
1462
<p>
1463
Therefore Caplan's attempt to justify using the dictionary definition
1464
fails. Firstly, because the definitions used would depend which dictionary
1465
you use. Secondly, dictionary definitions cannot capture the ins and
1466
outs of a <b>political</b> theory or its ideas on wider subjects.
1467
<p>
1468
Ironically enough, Caplan is repeating an attempt made by State Socialists
1469
to deny Individualist Anarchism its socialist title (see <i>"Socialism and
1470
the Lexicographers"</i> in <b>Instead of a Book</b>). In reply to this attempt,
1471
Tucker noted that:
1472
<p><blockquote>
1473
<i>"The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their
1474
definitions. A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous.
1475
But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance
1476
by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits."</i>
1477
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 369]
1478
</blockquote><p>
1479
And Tucker provided many quotes from <b>other</b> dictionaries to refute the
1480
attempt by the State Socialists to define Individualist Anarchism outside
1481
the Socialist movement. He also notes that any person trying such a method
1482
will <i>"find that the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one
1483
half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1484
p. 365]
1485
<p>
1486
Caplan should take note. His technique been tried before and it failed then
1487
and it will fail again for the same reasons.
1488
<p>
1489
As far as his case against the Historical Argument goes, this is equally as
1490
flawed. Caplan states that:
1491
<p><blockquote>
1492
<i>"Before the Protestant Reformation, the word 'Christian,' had referred almost
1493
entirely to Catholics (as well as adherents of the Orthodox Church) for
1494
about one thousand years. Does this reveal any linguistic confusion on
1495
the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and so on, when they called themselves
1496
'Christians'? Of course not. It merely reveals that a word's historical
1497
usage does not determine its meaning."</i>
1498
</blockquote><p>
1499
However, as analogies go this is pretty pathetic. Both the Protestants and
1500
Catholics followed the teachings of Christ but had different interpretations
1501
of it. As such they could both be considered Christians - followers of the
1502
Bible. In the case of anarchism, there are two main groupings - individualist
1503
and social. Both Tucker and Bakunin claimed to follow, apply and develop
1504
Proudhon's ideas (and share his opposition to both state and capitalism)
1505
and so are part of the anarchist tradition.
1506
<p>
1507
The anarchist movement was based upon applying the core ideas of Proudhon
1508
(his anti-statism and socialism) and developing them in the same spirit, and
1509
these ideas find their roots in <b>socialist</b> history and theory. For example,
1510
William Godwin was claimed as an anarchist after his death by the movement
1511
because of his opposition to both state and private property, something
1512
all anarchists oppose. Similarly, Max Stirner's opposition to both state
1513
and capitalist property places him within the anarchist tradition.
1514
<p>
1515
Given that we find fascists and Nazis calling themselves "republicans,"
1516
"democrats," even "liberals" it is worthwhile remembering that the names
1517
of political theories are defined not by who use them, but by the ideas
1518
associated with the name. In other words, a fascist cannot call themselves
1519
a "liberal" any more than a capitalist can call themselves an "anarchist."
1520
To state, as Caplan does, that the historical usage of a word does not
1521
determine its meaning results in utter confusion and the end of meaningful
1522
political debate. If the historical usage of a name is meaningless will we
1523
soon see fascists as well as capitalists calling themselves anarchists? In
1524
other words, the label "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer, pure and simple,
1525
as <b>all</b> anarchists have opposed capitalism as an authoritarian system based
1526
upon exploitation and wage slavery.
1527
<p>
1528
To ignore the historical usage of a word means to ignore what the movement
1529
that used that word stood for. Thus, if Caplan is correct, an organisation calling itself the "Libertarian National Socialist Party," for example,
1530
can rightly call itself libertarian for <i>"a word's historical usage does
1531
not determine its meaning."</i> Given that right-libertarians in the USA have
1532
tried to steal the name "libertarian" from anarchists and anarchist
1533
influenced socialists, such a perspective on Caplan's part makes perfect
1534
sense. How ironic that a movement that defends private property so strongly
1535
continually tries to steal names from other political tendencies.
1536
<p>
1537
Perhaps a better analogy for the conflict between anarchism and "anarcho"-
1538
capitalism would be between Satanists and Christians. Would we consider
1539
as Christian a Satanist grouping claiming to be Christian? A grouping
1540
that rejects everything that Christians believe but who like the name?
1541
Of course not. Neither would we consider as a right-libertarian someone
1542
who is against the free market or someone as a Marxist who supports
1543
capitalism. However, that is what Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists
1544
want us to do with anarchism.
1545
<p>
1546
Both social and individualist anarchists defined their ideas in terms of
1547
both political (abolition of the state) <b>and</b> economic (abolition of
1548
exploitation) ideas. Kropotkin defined anarchism as <i>"the no-government
1549
form of socialism"</i> while Tucker insisted that anarchism was <i>"the abolition
1550
of the State and the abolition of usury."</i> In this they followed Proudhon
1551
who stated that <i>"[w]e do not admit the government of man by man any more
1552
than the exploitation of man by man."</i> [quoted by Peter Marshall,
1553
<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 245]
1554
<p>
1555
In other words, a political movement's economic ideas are just as much
1556
a part of its theories as their political ideas. Any attempt to consider
1557
one in isolation from the other kills what defines the theory and makes
1558
it unique. And, ultimately, any such attempt, is a lie:
1559
<p><blockquote>
1560
<i>"[classical liberalism] is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism,
1561
and therefore simply a lie, for freedom is impossible without equality,
1562
and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism."</i>
1563
[Errico Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 46]
1564
</blockquote><p>
1565
Therefore Caplan's case against the Historical Argument also fails -
1566
"anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer because anarchism has always, in all
1567
its forms, opposed capitalism. Denying and re-writing history is hardly
1568
a means of refuting the historical argument.
1569
<p>
1570
Caplan ends by stating:
1571
<p><blockquote>
1572
<i>"Let us designate anarchism (1) anarchism as you define it. Let us designate
1573
anarchism (2) anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary
1574
define it. This is a FAQ about anarchism (2)."</i>
1575
</blockquote><p>
1576
Note that here we see again how the dictionary is a very poor foundation
1577
upon to base an argument. Again using <b>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
1578
Dictionary</b>, we find under "anarchist" - <i>"one who rebels against any
1579
authority, established order, or ruling power."</i> This definition is very
1580
close to that which "traditional" anarchists have - which is the basis
1581
for our own opposition to the notion that anarchism is merely rebellion
1582
against <b>State</b> authority.
1583
<p>
1584
Clearly this definition is at odds with Caplan's own view; is Webster's
1585
then wrong, and Caplan's view right? Which view is backed by the theory
1586
and history of the movement? Surely that should be the basis of who is
1587
part of the anarchist tradition and movement and who is not? Rather
1588
than do this, Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists rush to the
1589
dictionary (well, those that do not define anarchy as "disorder").
1590
This is for a reason as anarchism as a political movement as always
1591
been explicitly anti-capitalist and so the term "anarcho"-capitalism
1592
is an oxymoron.
1593
<p>
1594
What Caplan fails to even comprehend is that his choices are false.
1595
Anarchism can be designated in two ways:
1596
<p><blockquote>
1597
(1). Anarchism as you define it<br>
1598
(2). Anarchism as the anarchist movement defines it and finds expression
1599
in the theories developed by that movement.
1600
</blockquote><p>
1601
Caplan chooses anarchism (1) and so denies the whole history of the
1602
anarchist movement. Anarchism is not a word, it is a political theory
1603
with a long history which dictionaries cannot cover. Therefore any attempt
1604
to define anarchism by such means is deeply flawed and ultimately
1605
fails.
1606
<p>
1607
That Caplan's position is ultimately false can be seen from the
1608
"anarcho"-capitalists themselves. In many dictionaries anarchy is
1609
defined as <i>"disorder,"</i> <i>"a state of lawlessness"</i> and so on. Strangely
1610
enough, no "anarcho"-capitalist ever uses <b>these</b> dictionary definitions
1611
of "anarchy"! Thus appeals to dictionaries are just as much a case
1612
of defining anarchism as you desire as not using dictionaries. Far
1613
better to look at the history and traditions of the anarchist movement
1614
itself, seek out its common features and apply <b>those</b> as criteria to
1615
those seeking to include themselves in the movement. As can be seen,
1616
"anarcho"-capitalism fails this test and, therefore, are not part of
1617
the anarchist movement. Far better for us all if they pick a new
1618
label to call themselves rather than steal our name.
1619
<p>
1620
Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of our
1621
history is not one of them.
1622
<p>
1623
</body>
1624
</html>
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1