4
<title>Section F - Introduction</title>
8
<h1>Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?</h1>
11
Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come
12
across people calling themselves "libertarians" but arguing from a right-wing,
13
pro-capitalist perspective. For most people outside of North America, this is
14
weird as the term <i>"libertarian"</i> is almost always used in conjunction
15
with <i>"socialist"</i> or <i>"communist"</i> (particularly in Europe and,
16
it should be stressed, historically in America). In the US, though, the Right
17
has partially succeeded in appropriating the term "libertarian" for itself.
18
Even stranger is that a few of these right-wingers have started
19
calling themselves "anarchists" in what must be one of the finest examples
20
of an oxymoron in the English language: "Anarcho-capitalist"!!!
22
Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to let their foolishness to go
23
unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism.
24
This is what this section of the FAQ is for, to show why the claims of these
25
"anarchist" capitalists are false. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist
26
and any "anarchism" that claims otherwise cannot be part of the anarchist
27
tradition. It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called
28
capitalist "anarchists" do <b>not</b> reflect some kind of debate within
29
anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between
30
anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways this debate mirrors the
31
one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer (an English capitalist minimal
32
statist) at the turn the 19th century and, as such, it is hardly new.
34
At that time, people like Spencer tended to call themselves "liberals" while, as
35
Bookchin noted, <i>"libertarian"</i> was <i>"a term created by nineteenth-century
36
European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians."</i>
37
[<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 57] David Goodway concurs, stating that
38
<i>"libertarian"</i> has been <i>"frequently employed by anarchists"</i> as
39
an alternative name for our politics for over a century. However, the
40
<i>"situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of
41
. . . extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy . . . and [its advocates]
42
adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism.' It has therefore now
43
become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left
44
libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."</i> [<b>Anarchist Seeds Beneath the
45
Snow</b>, p. 4] This appropriation of the term "libertarian" by the right not
46
only has bred confusion, but also protest as anarchists have tried to point out
47
the obvious, namely that capitalism is marked by <b>authoritarian</b> social
48
relationships and so there are good reasons for anarchism being a fundamentally
49
anti-capitalist socio-political theory and movement. That a minority of the
50
right "libertarians" have also tried to appropriate "anarchist" to describe
51
their authoritarian politics is something almost all anarchists reject and oppose.
53
That the vast majority of anarchists reject the notion of "anarcho"-capitalism
54
as a form of anarchism is an inconvenient fact for its supporters. Rather than
55
address this, they generally point to the fact that some academics state that
56
"anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism and include it in their accounts
57
of our movement and ideas. That some academics do this is true, but irrelevant.
58
What counts is what anarchists think anarchism is. To place the opinions of
59
academics above that of anarchists implies that anarchists know nothing about
60
anarchism, that we do not really understand the ideas we advocate but academics
61
do! Yet this is the implication. As such the near universal rejection of
62
"anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism within anarchist circles is
63
significant. However, it could be argued that as a few anarchists (usually
64
individualist ones, but not always) <b>do</b> admit "anarcho"-capitalism into our
65
movement that this (very small) minority shows that the majority are "sectarian."
66
Again, this is not convincing as some individuals in any movement will hold
67
positions which the majority reject and which are, sometimes, incompatible with
68
the basic principles of the movement (Proudhon's sexism and racism are obvious
69
examples). Equally, given that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists have
70
fundamentally <i><b>different</b></i> analyses and goals it is hardly
71
"sectarian" to point this out (being "sectarian" in politics means prioritising
72
differences and rivalries with politically close groups).
74
Some scholars do note the difference. For example, Jeremy Jennings, in
75
his excellent overview of anarchist theory and history, argues that it is
76
<i>"hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] -- with roots
77
deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist only on the basis
78
of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>,
79
<b>Contemporary Political Ideologies</b>, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
80
(eds.), p. 142] Barbara Goodwin reaches a similar conclusion, noting
81
that the "anarcho"-capitalists' <i>"true place is in the group of right-wing
82
libertarians"</i> not in anarchism for <i>"[w]hile condemning absolutely state
83
coercion, they tacitly condone the economic and interpersonal coercion
84
which would prevail in a totally <b>laissez-faire</b> society. Most anarchists
85
share the egalitarian ideal with socialists: anarcho-capitalists abhor
86
equality and socialism equally."</i> [<b>Using Political Ideas</b>, p. 138]
88
Sadly, these seem to be the minority in academic circles as most are happy
89
to discuss right-"libertarian" ideology as a subclass of anarchism in spite
90
of there being so little in common between the two. Their inclusion does
91
really seem to derive from the fact that "anarcho"-capitalists <b>call</b>
92
themselves anarchists and the academics take this at face value. Yet,
93
as one anarchist notes, having a <i>"completely fluid definition of anarchism,
94
allows for anyone and anything to be described as such, no matter how
95
authoritarian and anti-social."</i> [Benjamin Franks, <i>"Mortal Combat"</i>,
96
pp. 4-6, <b>A Touch of Class</b>, no. 1, p. 5] Also, given that many academics
97
approach anarchism from what could be termed the "dictionary definition"
98
methodology rather than as a political movement approach there is a
99
tendency for "anarcho"-capitalist claims to be taken at face value.
100
As such, it is useful to stress that anarchism is a social movement
101
with a long history and while its adherents have held divergent views,
102
it has never been limited to simply opposition to the state (i.e. the
103
dictionary definition).
105
The "anarcho"-capitalist argument that it is a form of anarchism hinges on
106
using the dictionary definition of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy." They try to
107
define anarchism as being "opposition to government," and nothing else. Of
108
course, many (if not most) dictionaries "define" anarchy as "chaos" or
109
"disorder" but we never see "anarcho"-capitalists use those particular
110
definitions! Moreover, and this should go without saying, dictionaries are
111
hardly politically sophisticated and their definitions rarely reflect the
112
wide range of ideas associated with political theories and their history.
113
Thus the dictionary "definition" of anarchism will tend to ignore its
114
consistent views on authority, exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas
115
easily discovered if actual anarchist texts are read). And for this strategy
116
to work, a lot of "inconvenient" history and ideas from all branches of
117
anarchism must be ignored. From individualists like Tucker to communists like
118
Kropotkin and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist movement.
119
Therefore "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the same sense that
122
Significantly, the inventor of the term "anarcho"-capitalism, Murray Rothbard
123
had no impact on the anarchist movement even in North America. His influence,
124
unsurprisingly, was limited to the right, particularly in so-called
125
"libertarian" circles. The same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism in
126
general. This can be seen from the way Rothbard is mentioned in Paul Nursey-Bray's
127
bibliography on anarchist thinkers. This is an academic book, a reference for
128
libraries. Rothbard is featured, but the context is very suggestive. The book
129
includes Rothbard in a section titled <i>"On the Margins of Anarchist Theory."</i>
130
His introduction to the Rothbard section is worth quoting:
131
</p><p><blockquote><i>
132
"Either the inclusion or the omission of Rothbard as an anarchist is likely, in
133
one quarter or another, to be viewed as contentious. Here, his Anarcho-Capitalism
134
is treated as marginal, since, while there are linkages with the tradition of
135
individualist anarchism, there is a dislocation between the mutualism and
136
communitarianism of that tradition and the free market theory, deriving from
137
Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, that underpins Rothbard's political
138
philosophy, and places him in the modern Libertarian tradition."</i> [<b>Anarchist
139
Thinkers and Thought</b>, p. 133]
141
This is important, for while Rothbard (like other "anarcho"-capitalists)
142
appropriates <b>some</b> aspects of individualist anarchism he does so in a
143
highly selective manner and places what he does take into an utterly different
144
social environment and political tradition. So while there are similarities
145
between both systems, there are important differences as we will discuss in
146
detail in <a href="secGcon.html">section G</a> along with the anti-capitalist
147
nature of individualist anarchism (i.e. those essential bits which Rothbard
148
and his followers ignore or dismiss). Needless to say, Nursey-Bray does not
149
include "anarcho"-capitalism in his discussion of anarchist schools of
150
thought in the bibliography's introduction.
152
Of course, we cannot stop the "anarcho"-capitalists using the words
153
"anarcho", "anarchism" and "anarchy" to describe their ideas. The
154
democracies of the west could not stop the Chinese Stalinist state calling
155
itself the People's Republic of China. Nor could the social democrats
156
stop the fascists in Germany calling themselves "National Socialists".
157
Nor could the Italian anarcho-syndicalists stop the fascists using the
158
expression "National Syndicalism". This does not mean their names reflected
159
their content -- China is a dictatorship, not a democracy; the Nazi's were
160
not socialists (capitalists made fortunes in Nazi Germany because it
161
crushed the labour movement); and the Italian fascist state had nothing
162
in common with anarcho-syndicalist ideas of decentralised, "from the
163
bottom up" unions and the abolition of the state and capitalism.
165
It could be argued (and it has) that the previous use of a word does not
166
preclude new uses. Language changes and, as such, it is possible for a
167
<b>new</b> kind of "anarchism" to develop which has little, or no,
168
similarities with what was previously known as anarchism. Equally, it
169
could be said that new developments of anarchism have occurred in the
170
past which were significantly different from old versions (for example,
171
the rise of communist forms of anarchism in opposition to Proudhon's
172
anti-communist mutualism). Both arguments are unconvincing. The first
173
just makes a mockery of the concept of language and breeds confusion. If
174
people start calling black white, it does not make it so. Equally, to
175
call an ideology with little in common with a known and long established
176
socio-political theory and movement the same name simply results in
177
confusion. No one takes, say, fascists seriously when they call their
178
parties "democratic" nor would we take Trotskyists seriously if they
179
started to call themselves "libertarians" (as some have started to do).
180
The second argument fails to note that developments within anarchism
181
built upon what came before and did not change its fundamental
182
(socialistic) basis. Thus communist and collectivist anarchism are
183
valid forms of anarchism because they built upon the key insights of
184
mutualism rather than denying them.
186
A related defence of "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism is
187
the suggestion that the problem is one of terminology. This argument is
188
based on noting that "anarcho"-capitalists are against "actually existing"
189
capitalism and so <i>"we must distinguish between 'free-market capitalism'
190
. . . and 'state capitalism' . . . The two are as different as day and
191
night."</i> [Rothbard, <b>The Logic of Action II</b>, p. 185] It would be
192
churlish indeed to point out that the <b>real</b> difference is that one exists
193
while the other has existed only in Rothbard's head. Yet point it out we must,
194
for the simple fact is that not only do "anarcho"-capitalists use the word
195
anarchism in an unusual way (i.e. in opposition to what has always been meant
196
by the term), they also use the word capitalism in a like manner (i.e., to
197
refer to something that has never existed). It should go without saying that
198
using words like "capitalism" and "anarchism" in ways radically different
199
to traditional uses cannot help but provoke confusion. Yet is it a case that
200
"anarcho"-capitalists have simply picked a bad name for their ideology? Hardly,
201
as its advocates will quickly rush to defend exploitation (non-labour income)
202
and capitalist property rights as well as the authoritarian social structures
203
produced with them. Moreover, as good capitalist economists the notion of an
204
economy without interest, rent and profit is considered highly inefficient
205
and so unlikely to develop. As such, their ideology is rooted
206
in a perspective and an economy marked by wage labour, landlords, banking and
207
stock markets and so hierarchy, oppression and exploitation, i.e. a capitalist
210
So they have chosen their name well as it shows in clear light how far they are
211
from the anarchist tradition. As such, almost all anarchists would agree with
212
long-time anarchist activist Donald Rooum's comment that <i>"self-styled
213
'anarcho-capitalists' (not to be confused with
214
anarchists of any persuasion) [simply] want the state abolished as a regulator
215
of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists."</i> They are
216
<i>"wrongly self-styled 'anarchists'"</i> because they <i>"do not oppose capitalist
217
oppression"</i> while genuine anarchists are <i>"extreme libertarian socialists."</i>
218
[<b>What Is Anarchism?</b>, p. 7, pp. 12-13 and p. 10] As we stress in
219
<a href="secF1.html">section F.1</a>, "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose
220
the hierarchies and exploitation associated with
221
capitalism (wage labour and landlordism) and, consequently, have no claim
222
to the term "anarchist." Just because someone uses a label it does
223
not mean that they support the ideas associated with that label and this is
224
the case with "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas
225
associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism
226
which is often claimed, usually by "anarcho"-capitalists, as being a forefather
229
We are covering this topic in an anarchist FAQ for three reasons. Firstly, the
230
number of "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalists on the net means that those
231
seeking to find out about anarchism may conclude that they are "anarchists" as
232
well. Secondly, unfortunately, some academics and writers have taken their
233
claims of being anarchists at face value and have included their ideology in
234
general accounts of anarchism (the better academic accounts do note that
235
anarchists generally reject the claim). These two reasons are obviously related
236
and hence the need to show the facts of the matter. The last reason is to provide
237
other anarchists with arguments and evidence to use against "anarcho"-capitalism
238
and its claims of being a new form of "anarchism."
240
So this section of the FAQ does not, as we noted above, represent some kind
241
of "debate" within anarchism. It reflects the attempt by anarchists to
242
reclaim the history and meaning of anarchism from those who are attempting
243
to steal its name. However, our discussion also serves two other purposes.
244
Firstly, critiquing right "libertarian" theories allows us to explain
245
anarchist ones at the same time and indicate why they are better. Secondly,
246
and more importantly, it shares many of the same assumptions and aims of
247
neo-liberalism. This was noted by Bob Black in the early 1980s, when a
248
<i>"wing of the Reaganist Right . . . obviously appropriated, with suspect
249
selectivity, such libertarian themes as deregulation and voluntarism.
250
Ideologues indignate that Reagan has travestied their principles. Tough shit!
251
I notice that it's <b>their</b> principles, not mine, that he found suitable
252
to travesty."</i> [<i>"The Libertarian As Conservative"</i>, pp. 141-8, <b>The
253
Abolition of Work and Other Essays</b>, pp. 141-2] This was echoed by Noam
254
Chomsky two decades later when he stated that <i>"nobody takes [right-wing
255
libertarianism] seriously"</i> (as <i>"everybody knows that a society that
256
worked by . . . [its] principles would self-destruct in three seconds"</i>).
257
The <i>"only reason"</i> why some people in the ruling elite <i>"pretend
258
to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon"</i> in the
259
class struggle [<b>Understanding Power</b>, p. 200] As neo-liberalism is
260
being used as the ideological basis of the current attack on the working
261
class, critiquing "anarcho"-capitalism also allows us to build theoretical
262
weapons to use to resist this attack and aid our side in the class war.
264
The results of the onslaught of free(r) market capitalism along with anarchist
265
criticism of "anarcho"-capitalism has resulted in some "anarcho"-capitalists
266
trying to re-brand their ideology as "market anarchism." This, from their
267
perspective, has two advantages. Firstly, it allows them to co-opt the
268
likes of Tucker and Spooner (and, sometimes, even Proudhon!) into their family
269
tree as all these supported markets (while systematically attacking capitalism).
270
Secondly, it allows them to distance their ideology from the grim reality of
271
neo-liberalism and the results of making capitalism more "free market." Simply
272
put, going on about the benefits of "free market" capitalism while freer
273
market capitalism is enriching the already wealthy and oppressing and
274
impoverishing the many is hard going. Using the term "market anarchism" to
275
avoid both the reality of anarchism's anti-capitalist core and the reality
276
of the freer market capitalism they have helped produce makes sense in the
277
marketplace of ideas (the term "blackwashing" seems appropriate here).
278
The fact is that however laudable its stated aims, "anarcho"-capitalism is
279
deeply flawed due to its simplistic nature and is easy to abuse on behalf of
280
the economic oligarchy that lurks behind the rhetoric of economic textbooks in
281
that "special case" so ignored by economists, namely reality.
283
Anarchism has always been aware of the existence of "free market" capitalism,
284
particularly its extreme (minimal state) wing, and has always rejected it.
285
As we discuss in <a href="secF7.html">section F.7</a>, anarchists from
286
Proudhon onwards have rejected it (and, significantly, vice versa). As
287
academic Alan Carter notes, anarchist concern for equality as a necessary
288
precondition for genuine freedom <i>"is one very good reason for not confusing
289
anarchists with liberals or economic 'libertarians' -- in other words, for not
290
lumping together everyone who is in some way or another critical of the state.
291
It is why calling the likes of Nozick 'anarchists' is highly misleading."</i>
292
[<i>"Some notes on 'Anarchism'"</i>, pp. 141-5, <b>Anarchist Studies</b>,
293
vol. 1, no. 2, p. 143] So anarchists have evaluated "free market" capitalism
294
and rejected it as non-anarchist since the birth of anarchism and so attempts
295
by "anarcho"-capitalism to say that their system is "anarchist" flies
296
in the face of this long history of anarchist analysis. That some
297
academics fall for their attempts to appropriate the anarchist
298
label for their ideology is down to a false premise: it <i>"is judged
299
to be anarchism largely because some anarcho-capitalists <b>say</b> they
300
are 'anarchists' and because they criticise the State."</i> [Peter
301
Sabatini, <b>Social Anarchism</b>, no. 23, p. 100]
303
More generally, we must stress that most (if not all) anarchists do not want
304
to live in a society <b>just like this one</b> but without state coercion
305
and (the initiation of) force. Anarchists do not confuse "freedom" with
306
the "right" to govern and exploit others nor with being able to change
307
masters. It is not enough to say we can start our own (co-operative)
308
business in such a society. We want the abolition of the capitalist
309
system of authoritarian relationships, not just a change of bosses or the
310
possibility of little islands of liberty within a sea of capitalism (islands
311
which are always in danger of being flooded and our freedom destroyed). Thus,
312
in this section of the FAQ, we analysis many "anarcho"-capitalist claims on
313
their own terms (for example, the importance of equality in the market or
314
why replacing the state with private defence firms is simply changing the
315
name of the state rather than abolishing it) but that does not mean we
316
desire a society nearly identical to the current one. Far from it, we want
317
to transform this society into one more suited for developing and enriching
318
individuality and freedom.
320
Finally, we dedicate this section of the FAQ to those who have seen the
321
real face of "free market" capitalism at work: the working men and women
322
(anarchist or not) murdered in the jails and concentration camps or on the
323
streets by the hired assassins of capitalism.
325
For more discussion on this issue, see the appendix
326
<a href="append1.html">"Anarchism and 'Anarcho'-capitalism"</a>
added
removed
html/secFint.html
