4
<title>F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?</title>
8
<h1>F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?</h1>
11
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate
12
themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho"
13
or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at
14
odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that
15
their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist
16
tradition or movement are false.
18
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they
19
oppose government. As noted in the <a href="secFint.html">last section</a>,
20
they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to
21
appreciate that anarchism is a <b>political theory</b>. As dictionaries
22
are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail
23
to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government,
24
it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and
25
private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary
26
but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need
27
to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As
28
"anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e.
29
capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights,
30
they are not anarchists.
32
Part of the problem is that Marxists, like many academics, also tend to assert
33
that anarchists are simply against the state. It is significant that both Marxists
34
and "anarcho"-capitalists tend to define anarchism as purely opposition
35
to government. This is no co-incidence, as both seek to exclude anarchism
36
from its place in the wider socialist movement. This makes perfect sense
37
from the Marxist perspective as it allows them to present their ideology
38
as the only serious anti-capitalist one around (not to mention associating
39
anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism is an excellent way of discrediting our
40
ideas in the wider radical movement). It should go without saying that this
41
is an obvious and serious misrepresentation of the anarchist position as
42
even a superficial glance at anarchist theory and history shows that no
43
anarchist limited their critique of society simply at the state. So while
44
academics and Marxists seem aware of the anarchist opposition to the state,
45
they usually fail to grasp the anarchist critique applies to all other
46
authoritarian social institutions and how it fits into the overall anarchist
47
analysis and struggle. They seem to think the anarchist condemnation of
48
capitalist private property, patriarchy and so forth are somehow superfluous
49
additions rather than a logical position which reflects the core of anarchism:
50
</p><p><blockquote><i>
51
"Critics have sometimes contended that anarchist thought, and classical anarchist
52
theory in particular, has emphasised opposition to the state to the point of
53
neglecting the real hegemony of economic power. This interpretation arises,
54
perhaps, from a simplistic and overdrawn distinction between the anarchist
55
focus on political domination and the Marxist focus on economic exploitation . . .
56
there is abundant evidence against such a thesis throughout the history of
57
anarchist thought."</i> [John P. Clark and Camille Martin, <b>Anarchy, Geography,
60
So Reclus simply stated the obvious when he wrote that <i>"the anti-authoritarian
61
critique to which the state is subjected applies equally to all social institutions."</i>
62
[quoted by Clark and Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 140] Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin,
63
Goldman and so on would all agree with that. While they all stressed that anarchism
64
was against the state they quickly moved on to present a critique of private property
65
and other forms of hierarchical authority. So while anarchism obviously opposes the
66
state, <i>"sophisticated and developed anarchist theory proceeds further. It does not
67
stop with a criticism of political organisation, but goes on to investigate the
68
authoritarian nature of economic inequality and private property, hierarchical
69
economic structures, traditional education, the patriarchal family, class and
70
racial discrimination, and rigid sex- and age-roles, to mention just a few of the
71
more important topics."</i> For the <i>"essence of anarchism is, after all, not the
72
theoretical opposition to the state, but the practical and theoretical struggle
73
against domination."</i> [John Clark, <b>The Anarchist Moment</b>, p. 128 and p. 70]
75
This is also the case with individualist anarchists whose defence of certain
76
forms of property did stop them criticising key aspects of <b>capitalist</b> property
77
rights. As Jeremy Jennings notes, the <i>"point to stress is that all anarchists,
78
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of
79
anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent
80
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege."</i> He goes on to state that
81
anarchists like Tucker and Spooner <i>"agreed with the proposition that property
82
was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of
83
individual labour."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>, <b>Contemporary Political Ideologies</b>,
84
Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 132] This is acknowledged by the likes
85
of Rothbard who had to explicitly point how that his position on such subjects
86
was fundamentally different (i.e., at odds) with individualist anarchism.
88
As such, it would be fair to say that most "anarcho"-capitalists are capitalists
89
first and foremost. If aspects of anarchism do not fit with some element of
90
capitalism, they will reject that element of anarchism rather than question
91
capitalism (Rothbard's selective appropriation of the individualist anarchist
92
tradition is the most obvious example of this). This means that right-"libertarians"
93
attach the "anarcho" prefix to their ideology because they believe that being
94
against government intervention is equivalent to being an anarchist (which flows
95
into their use of the dictionary definition of anarchism). That they ignore the
96
bulk of the anarchist tradition should prove that there is hardly anything
97
anarchistic about them at all. They are not against authority, hierarchy or
98
the state -- they simply want to privatise them.
100
Ironically, this limited definition of "anarchism" ensures that "anarcho"-capitalism
101
is inherently self-refuting. This can be seen from leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray
102
Rothbard. He thundered against the evil of the state, arguing that it <i>"arrogates
103
to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given
104
territorial area."</i> In and of itself, this definition is unremarkable. That a few
105
people (an elite of rulers) claim the right to rule others must be <b>part</b> of any
106
sensible definition of the state or government. However, the problems begin for
107
Rothbard when he notes that <i>"[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the
108
ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."</i>
109
[<b>The Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 170 and p. 173] The logical contradiction in this
110
position should be obvious, but not to Rothbard. It shows the power of ideology,
111
the ability of mere words (the expression <i>"private property"</i>) to turn
112
the bad (<i>"ultimate decision-making power over a given area"</i>) into the good
113
(<i>"ultimate decision-making power over a given area"</i>).
115
Now, this contradiction can be solved in only <b>one</b> way -- the users
116
of the <i>"given area"</i> are also its owners. In other words, a system of
117
possession (or "occupancy and use") as favoured by anarchists. However, Rothbard
118
is a capitalist and supports private property, non-labour income, wage labour,
119
capitalists and landlords. This means that he supports a divergence between
120
ownership and use and this means that this <i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i>
121
extends to those who <b>use,</b> but do not own, such property (i.e. tenants and
122
workers). The statist nature of private property is clearly indicated by Rothbard's
123
words -- the property owner in an "anarcho"-capitalist society possesses the
124
<i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i> over a given area, which is also what
125
the state has currently. Rothbard has, ironically, proved by his own definition
126
that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
128
Of course, it would be churlish to point out that the usual name for a political
129
system in which the owner of a territory is also its ruler is, in fact, monarchy.
130
Which suggests that while "anarcho"-capitalism may be called "anarcho-statism" a
131
far better term could be "anarcho-monarchism." In fact, some "anarcho"-capitalists
132
have made explicit this obvious implication of Rothbard's argument. Hans-Hermann
135
Hoppe prefers monarchy to democracy, considering it the superior system.
136
He argues that the monarch is the <b>private</b> owner of the government -- all
137
the land and other resources are <b>owned</b> by him. Basing himself on Austrian
138
economics (what else?) and its notion of time preference, he concludes that the
139
monarch will, therefore, work to maximise both current income and the total
140
capital value of his estate. Assuming self-interest, his planning horizon
141
will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Democracy, in
142
contrast, is a publicly-owned government and the elected rulers have use
143
of resources for a short period only and <b>not</b> their capital value.
144
In other words, they do not own the country and so will seek to maximise
145
their short-term interests (and the interests of those they think will elect
146
them into office). In contrast, Bakunin stressed that if anarchism rejects
147
democracy it was <i>"hardly in order to reverse it but rather to advance it,"</i>
148
in particular to extend it via <i>"the great economic revolution without which
149
every right is but an empty phrase and a trick."</i> He rejected wholeheartedly
150
<i>"the camp of aristocratic . . . reaction."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 87]
152
However, Hoppe is not a traditional monarchist. His ideal system is one of
153
<b>competing</b> monarchies, a society which is led by a <i>"voluntarily acknowledged
154
'natural' elite -- a <b>nobilitas naturalis</b>"</i> comprised of <i>"families with
155
long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and
156
exemplary personal conduct."</i> This is because <i>"a few individuals quickly
157
acquire the status of an elite"</i> and their inherent qualities will <i>"more
158
likely than not [be] passed on within a few -- noble -- families."</i> The sole
159
"problem" with traditional monarchies was <i>"with <b>monopoly</b>, not with elites
160
or nobility,"</i> in other words the King monopolised the role of judge and their
161
subjects could not turn to other members of the noble class for services.
162
[<i>"The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural
163
Order,"</i> pp. 94-121, <b>Journal of Libertarian Studies</b>, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 118
166
Which simply confirms the anarchist critique of "anarcho"-capitalism, namely
167
that it is <b>not</b> anarchist. This becomes even more obvious when Hoppe helpfully
168
expands on the reality of "anarcho"-capitalism:
169
</p><p><blockquote><i>
170
"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the
171
purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right
172
to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's
173
own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost
174
any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate
175
ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private
176
property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance
177
towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They
178
will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise
179
in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin,
180
there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles
181
incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative,
182
non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual
183
hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or
184
communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if
185
one is to maintain a libertarian order."</i> [<b>Democracy: the God that
188
Thus the proprietor has power/authority over his tenants and can decree
189
what they can and cannot do, excluding anyone whom they consider as being
190
subversive (in the tenants' own interests, of course). In other words, the
191
autocratic powers of the boss are extended into <b>all</b> aspects of
192
society -- all under the mask of advocating liberty. Sadly, the preservation
193
of property rights destroys liberty for the many (Hoppe states clearly that
194
for the "anarcho"-capitalist the <i>"natural outcome of the voluntary
195
transactions between various private property owners is decidedly
196
non-egalitarian, hierarchical and elitist."</i> [<i>"The Political Economy
197
of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural Order,"</i> <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
198
p. 118]). Unsurprisingly, Chomsky argued that right-wing "libertarianism" has
199
<i>"no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny."</i> In fact
200
it (like other contemporary ideologies) <i>"reduce[s] to advocacy of one
201
or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny."</i>
202
[<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, p. 235 and p. 181] As such, it is hard not
203
to conclude that "anarcho"-capitalism is little more than a play with words.
204
It is not anarchism but a cleverly designed and worded surrogate for
205
elitist, autocratic conservatism. Nor is too difficult to conclude that
206
genuine anarchists and libertarians (of all types) would not be tolerated
207
in this so-called <i>"libertarian social order."</i>
209
Some "anarcho"-capitalists do seem dimly aware of this glaringly obvious
210
contradiction. Rothbard, for example, does present an argument which could
211
be used to solve it, but he utterly fails. He simply ignores the crux of the
212
matter, that capitalism is based on hierarchy and, therefore, cannot be
213
anarchist. He does this by arguing that the hierarchy associated with
214
capitalism is fine as long as the private property that produced it was
215
acquired in a "just" manner. Yet in so doing he yet again draws attention
216
to the identical authority structures and social relationships of the state
217
and property. As he puts it:
219
<i>"<b>If</b> the State may be said to properly <b>own</b> its territory,
220
then it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to
221
live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private
222
property because there <b>is</b> no private property in its area,
223
because it really owns the entire land surface. <b>So long</b> as
224
the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it
225
can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules
226
for people living on his property."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 170]
228
Obviously Rothbard argues that the state does not "justly" own its
229
territory. He asserts that <i>"our homesteading theory"</i> of the
230
creation of private property <i>"suffices to demolish any such pretensions
231
by the State apparatus"</i> and so the problem with the state is that it
232
<i>"claims and exercises a compulsory monopoly of defence and ultimate
233
decision-making over an area larger than an individual's justly-acquired
234
property."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 171 and p. 173] There are four
235
fundamental problems with his argument.
237
First, it assumes his "homesteading theory" is a robust and libertarian
238
theory, but neither is the case (see <a href="secF4.html#secf41">section F.4.1</a>).
239
Second, it ignores the history of capitalism. Given that the current
240
distribution of property is just as much the result of violence and
241
coercion as the state, his argument is seriously flawed. It amounts to
242
little more than an <i><b>"immaculate conception of property"</b></i>
243
unrelated to reality. Third, even if we ignore these issues and assume
244
that private property could be and was legitimately produced by the means
245
Rothbard assumes, it does not justify the hierarchy associated with it
246
as current and future generations of humanity have, effectively, been
247
excommunicated from liberty by previous ones. If, as Rothbard argues,
248
property is a natural right and the basis of liberty then why should the
249
many be excluded from their birthright by a minority? In other words,
250
Rothbard denies that liberty should be universal. He chooses property
251
over liberty while anarchists choose liberty over property. Fourthly,
252
it implies that the fundamental problem with the state is <b>not</b>, as
253
anarchists have continually stressed, its hierarchical and authoritarian
254
nature but rather the fact that it does not justly own the territory it
257
Even worse, the possibility that private property can result in <b>more</b>
258
violations of individual freedom (at least for non-proprietors ) than the
259
state of its citizens was implicitly acknowledged by Rothbard. He uses as
260
a hypothetical example a country whose King is threatened by a rising
261
"libertarian" movement. The King responses by <i>"employ[ing] a cunning
262
stratagem,"</i> namely he <i>"proclaims his government to be dissolved, but
263
just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area
264
of his kingdom to the 'ownership' of himself and his relatives."</i> Rather
265
than taxes, his subjects now pay rent and he can <i>"regulate the lives of
266
all the people who presume to live on"</i> his property as he sees fit.
269
<i>"Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert
270
challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this
271
subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less
272
despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps,
273
indeed, <b>more</b> despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim
274
for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right
275
of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared
276
to claim before."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 54]
278
It should go without saying that Rothbard argues that we should reject this
279
<i>"cunning stratagem"</i> as a con as the new distribution of property
280
would not be the result of "just" means. However, he failed to note how his
281
argument undermines his own claims that capitalism can be libertarian. As
282
he himself argues, not only does the property owner have the same monopoly
283
of power over a given area as the state, it is <b>more</b> despotic as it is
284
based on the <i>"absolute right of private property"</i>! And remember, Rothbard
285
is arguing <b>in favour</b> of "anarcho"-capitalism (<i>"if you have unbridled
286
capitalism, you will have all kinds of authority: you will have <b>extreme</b>
287
authority."</i> [Chomsky, <b>Understanding Power</b>, p. 200]). The fundamental
288
problem is that Rothbard's ideology blinds him to the obvious, namely that the
289
state and private property produce identical social relationships (ironically,
290
he opines the theory that the state owns its territory <i>"makes the State, as well
291
as the King in the Middle Ages, a feudal overlord, who at least theoretically
292
<b>owned</b> all the land in his domain"</i> without noticing that this makes the
293
capitalist or landlord a King and a feudal overlord within "anarcho"-capitalism.
294
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 171]).
296
One group of Chinese anarchists pointed out the obvious in 1914. As anarchism
297
<i>"takes opposition to authority as its essential principle,"</i> anarchists aim
298
to <i>"sweep away all the evil systems of present society which have an authoritarian
299
nature"</i> and so <i>"our ideal society"</i> would be <i>"without landlords, capitalists,
300
leaders, officials, representatives or heads of families."</i> [quoted by Arif Dirlik,
301
<b>Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution</b>, p. 131] Only this, the elimination of
302
all forms of hierarchy (political, economic and social) would achieve genuine
303
anarchism, a society without authority (an-archy). In practice, private property
304
is a major source of oppression and authoritarianism within society -- there is
305
little or no freedom subject to a landlord or within capitalist production (as
306
Bakunin noted, <i>"the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time"</i>).
307
In stark contrast to anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with
308
landlords and factory fascism (i.e. wage labour), a position which seems highly
309
illogical for a theory calling itself libertarian. If it were truly libertarian,
310
it would oppose all forms of domination, not just statism (<i>"Those who reject
311
authoritarianism will require nobody' permission to breathe. The libertarian . . .
312
is not grateful to get permission to reside anywhere on his own planet and denies
313
the right of any one to screen off bits of it for their own use or rule."</i>
314
[Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, <b>Floodgates of Anarchy</b>, p. 31]). This
315
illogical and self-contradictory position flows from the "anarcho"-capitalist
316
definition of freedom as the absence of coercion and will be discussed in
317
<a href="secF2.html">section F.2</a> in more detail. The ironic thing is that
318
"anarcho"-capitalists implicitly prove the anarchist critique of their own
321
Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist has another means to avoid the obvious,
322
namely the assertion that the market will limit the abuses of the property
323
owners. If workers do not like their ruler then they can seek another. Thus
324
capitalist hierarchy is fine as workers and tenants "consent" to it. While
325
the logic is obviously the same, it is doubtful that an "anarcho"-capitalist
326
would support the state just because its subjects can leave and join another
327
one. As such, this does not address the core issue -- the authoritarian
328
nature of capitalist property (see <a href="secA2.html#seca214">section A.2.14</a>). Moreover, this argument completely ignores
329
the reality of economic and social power. Thus the "consent" argument fails
330
because it ignores the social circumstances of capitalism which limit the
333
Anarchists have long argued that, as a class, workers have little choice but
334
to "consent" to capitalist hierarchy. The alternative is either dire poverty
335
or starvation. "Anarcho"-capitalists dismiss such claims by denying that there
336
is such a thing as economic power. Rather, it is simply freedom of contract.
337
Anarchists consider such claims as a joke. To show why, we need only quote
338
(yet again) Rothbard on the abolition of slavery and serfdom in the 19th
339
century. He argued, correctly, that the <i>"<b>bodies</b> of the oppressed
340
were freed, but the property which they had worked and eminently deserved
341
to own, remained in the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power
342
thus remaining in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual
343
masters once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs
344
and slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits."</i>
345
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 74]
347
To say the least, anarchists fail to see the logic in this position. Contrast
348
this with the standard "anarcho"-capitalist claim that if market forces
349
("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of <i>"tenants or farm
350
labourers"</i> then they are free. Yet labourers dispossessed by market forces
351
are in exactly the same social and economic situation as the ex-serfs and
352
ex-slaves. If the latter do not have the fruits of freedom, neither do the
353
former. Rothbard sees the obvious <i>"economic power"</i> in the latter case,
354
but denies it in the former (ironically, Rothbard dismissed economic power
355
under capitalism in the same work. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 221-2]). It is only
356
Rothbard's ideology that stops him from drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical
357
economic conditions produce identical social relationships and so capitalism
358
is marked by <i>"economic power"</i> and <i>"virtual masters."</i> The only
359
solution is for "anarcho"-capitalist to simply say that the ex-serfs and ex-slaves
360
were actually free to choose and, consequently, Rothbard was wrong. It might
361
be inhuman, but at least it would be consistent!
363
Rothbard's perspective is alien to anarchism. For example, as individualist
364
anarchist William Bailie noted, under capitalism there is a class system
365
marked by <i>"a dependent industrial class of wage-workers"</i> and <i>"a
366
privileged class of wealth-monopolisers, each becoming more and more
367
distinct from the other as capitalism advances."</i> This has turned
368
property into <i>"a social power, an economic force destructive of rights,
369
a fertile source of injustice, a means of enslaving the dispossessed."</i>
370
He concluded: <i>"Under this system equal liberty cannot obtain."</i>
371
Bailie notes that the modern <i>"industrial world under capitalistic
372
conditions"</i> have <i>"arisen under the <b>regime</b> of status"</i>
373
(and so <i>"law-made privileges"</i>) however, it seems unlikely that
374
he would have concluded that such a class system would be fine if it
375
had developed naturally or the current state was abolished while leaving
376
that class structure intact. [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 121]
377
As we discuss in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>, Individualist
378
Anarchists like Tucker and Yarrows ended up recognising that even the freest
379
competition had become powerless against the enormous concentrations of
380
wealth associated with corporate capitalism.
382
Therefore anarchists recognise that "free exchange" or "consent" in
383
unequal circumstances will reduce freedom as well as increasing inequality
384
between individuals and classes. As we discuss in <a href="secF3.html">section F.3</a>,
385
inequality will produce social relationships which are based on hierarchy and
386
domination, <b>not</b> freedom. As Noam Chomsky put it:
388
<i>"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
389
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
390
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
391
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
392
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free
393
contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
394
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
395
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."</i> [<b>Noam Chomsky on
396
Anarchism</b>, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996]
398
Clearly, then, by its own arguments "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
399
This should come as no surprise to anarchists. Anarchism, as a political
400
theory, was born when Proudhon wrote <b>What is Property?</b> specifically to
401
refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces
402
them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware
403
that in such circumstances property <i>"violates equality by the rights of
404
exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect
405
identity with robbery."</i> He, unsurprisingly, talks of the <i>"proprietor, to
406
whom [the worker] has sold and surrendered his liberty."</i> For Proudhon,
407
anarchy was <i>"the absence of a master, of a sovereign"</i> while <i>"proprietor"</i>
408
was <i>"synonymous"</i> with <i>"sovereign"</i> for he <i>"imposes his will as law, and
409
suffers neither contradiction nor control."</i> This meant that <i>"property
410
engenders despotism,"</i> as <i>"each proprietor is sovereign lord within the
411
sphere of his property."</i> [<b>What is Property</b>, p. 251, p. 130, p. 264
412
and pp. 266-7] It must also be stressed that Proudhon's classic work is
413
a lengthy critique of the kind of apologetics for private property
414
Rothbard espouses to salvage his ideology from its obvious contradictions.
416
So, ironically, Rothbard repeats the same analysis as Proudhon but draws
417
the <b>opposite</b> conclusions and expects to be considered an anarchist!
418
Moreover, it seems equally ironic that "anarcho"-capitalism calls itself
419
"anarchist" while basing itself on the arguments that anarchism was
420
created in opposition to. As shown, "anarcho"-capitalism makes as much
421
sense as "anarcho-statism" -- an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The
422
idea that "anarcho"-capitalism warrants the name "anarchist" is simply
423
false. Only someone ignorant of anarchism could maintain such a thing.
424
While you expect anarchist theory to show this to be the case, the
425
wonderful thing is that "anarcho"-capitalism itself does the same.
427
Little wonder Bob Black argues that <i>"[t]o demonise state authoritarianism
428
while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements
429
in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism
430
at its worst."</i> [<i>"The Libertarian As Conservative"</i>, <b>The Abolition of
431
Work and Other Essays</b>, pp. 142] Left-liberal Stephen L. Newman makes the
433
</p><p><blockquote><i>
434
"The emphasis [right-wing] libertarians place on the opposition of liberty
435
and political power tends to obscure the role of authority in their
436
worldview . . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however
437
-- in the relationship between employer and employee, for instance --
438
meets with no objection. . . . [This] reveals a curious insensitivity to
439
the use of private authority as a means of social control. Comparing public
440
and private authority, we might well ask of the [right-wing] libertarians:
441
When the price of exercising one's freedom is terribly high, what practical
442
difference is there between the commands of the state and those issued
443
by one's employer? . . . Though admittedly the circumstances are not
444
identical, telling disgruntled empowers that they are always free to leave
445
their jobs seems no different in principle from telling political dissidents
446
that they are free to emigrate."</i> [<b>Liberalism at Wit's End</b>, pp. 45-46]
448
As Bob Black pointed out, right libertarians argue that <i>"'one can at least
449
change jobs.' But you can't avoid having a job -- just as under statism one
450
can at least change nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one
451
nation-state or another. But freedom means more than the right to change
452
masters."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 147] The similarities between capitalism
453
and statism are clear -- and so why "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be anarchist.
454
To reject the authority (the <i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i>)
455
of the state and embrace that of the property owner indicates not only a
456
highly illogical stance but one at odds with the basic principles of anarchism.
457
This whole-hearted support for wage labour and capitalist property rights
458
indicates that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists because they do
459
not reject all forms of <b>archy.</b> They obviously support the hierarchy
460
between boss and worker (wage labour) and landlord and tenant. Anarchism,
461
by definition, is against all forms of archy, including the hierarchy
462
generated by capitalist property. To ignore the obvious archy associated
463
with capitalist property is highly illogical and trying to dismiss one form
464
of domination as flowing from "just" property while attacking the other
465
because it flows from "unjust" property is not seeing the wood for the
468
In addition, we must note that such inequalities in power and wealth
469
will need "defending" from those subject to them ("anarcho"-capitalists
470
recognise the need for private police and courts to defend property
471
from theft -- and, anarchists add, to defend the theft and despotism
472
associated with property!). Due to its support of private property (and
473
thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism ends up retaining a state in its
474
"anarchy": namely a <b>private</b> state whose existence its proponents
475
attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a state, like an ostrich
476
hiding its head in the sand. As one anarchist so rightly put it,
477
"anarcho"-capitalists <i>"simply replaced the state with private
478
security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term
479
is normally understood."</i> [Brian Morris, <i>"Global Anti-Capitalism"</i>,
480
pp. 170-6, <b>Anarchist Studies</b>, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 175] As we
481
discuss more fully in <a href="secF6.html">section F.6</a> this is why
482
"anarcho"-capitalism is better described as "private state" capitalism
483
as there would be a functional equivalent of the state and it would be
484
just as skewed in favour of the propertied elite as the existing one
485
(if not more so). As Albert Meltzer put it:
487
<i>"Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with
488
a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government,
489
or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and
490
others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism'
491
dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with
492
Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie
493
. . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its
494
disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself
495
or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited
496
State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect
497
the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as
498
cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another
499
purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in
500
avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it."</i> [<b>Anarchism:
501
Arguments For and Against</b>, p. 50]
503
For anarchists, this need of capitalism for some kind of state is
504
unsurprising. For <i>"Anarchy without socialism seems equally as impossible
505
to us [as socialism without anarchy], for in such a case it could not be
506
other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in
507
motion right away the organisation and consolidation of this domination;
508
that is to the constitution of government."</i> [Errico Malatesta,
509
<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 148] Because of this,
510
the "anarcho"-capitalist rejection of the anarchist critique of capitalism
511
and our arguments on the need for equality, they cannot be considered
512
anarchists or part of the anarchist tradition. To anarchists it seems
513
bizarre that "anarcho"-capitalists want to get rid of the state but
514
maintain the system it helped create and its function as a defender of
515
the capitalist class's property and property rights. In other words, to
516
reduce the state purely to its function as (to use Malatesta's apt word)
517
the gendarme of the capitalist class is <b><i>not</i></b> an anarchist goal.
519
Thus anarchism is far more than the common dictionary definition
520
of "no government" -- it also entails being against all forms of
521
<b>archy</b>, including those generated by capitalist property. This
522
is clear from the roots of the word "anarchy." As we noted in
523
<a href="secA1.html">section A.1</a>, the word anarchy means "no rulers"
524
or "contrary to authority." As Rothbard himself acknowledges, the property
525
owner is the ruler of their property and, therefore, those who
526
use it. For this reason "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered as
527
a form of anarchism -- a real anarchist must logically oppose
528
the authority of the property owner along with that of the state.
529
As "anarcho"-capitalism does not explicitly (or implicitly, for
530
that matter) call for economic arrangements that will end wage
531
labour and usury it cannot be considered anarchist or part of the
532
anarchist tradition. While anarchists have always opposed capitalism,
533
"anarcho"-capitalists have embraced it and due to this embrace their
534
"anarchy" will be marked by relationships based upon subordination and hierarchy
535
(such as wage labour), <b>not</b> freedom (little wonder that Proudhon
536
argued that <i>"property is despotism"</i> -- it creates authoritarian and
537
hierarchical relationships between people in a similar way to statism).
538
Their support for "free market" capitalism ignores the impact of wealth
539
and power on the nature and outcome of individual decisions within the
540
market (see sections <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a> and <a href="secF3.html">F.3</a>
541
for further discussion). Furthermore, any such system of (economic and
542
social) power will require extensive force to maintain it and the
543
"anarcho"-capitalist system of competing "defence firms" will simply be
544
a new state, enforcing capitalist power, property rights and law.
546
Thus the "anarcho"-capitalist and the anarchist have different starting
547
positions and opposite ends in mind. Their claims to being anarchists are
548
bogus simply because they reject so much of the anarchist tradition as to
549
make what little they do pay lip-service to non-anarchist in theory and
550
practice. Little wonder Peter Marshall said that <i>"few anarchists would
551
accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not
552
share a concern for economic equality and social justice."</i> As such,
553
"anarcho"-capitalists, <i>"even if they do reject the State, might
554
therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."</i>
555
[<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 565]
b'\\ No newline at end of file'
added
removed
html/secF1.html
