« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to txt/append12.txt
- 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
txt/append12.txt
1
Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist
2
Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1. There have been a few "anarchist" FAQ's
3
produced before. Bryan Caplan's anarchism FAQ is one of the more
4
recent. While appearing to be a "neutral" statement of anarchist ideas,
5
it is actually in large part an "anarcho"-capitalist FAQ. This can be
6
seen by the fact that anarchist ideas (which he calls "left-anarchist")
7
are given less than half the available space while "anarcho"-capitalist
8
dogma makes up the majority of it. Considering that anarchism has been
9
around far longer than "anarcho"-capitalism and is the bigger and
10
better established movement, this is surprising. Even his use of the
11
term "left anarchist" is strange as it is never used by anarchists and
12
ignores the fact that Individualist Anarchists like Tucker called
13
themselves "socialists" and considered themselves part of the wider
14
socialist movement. For anarchists, the expression "left anarchist" is
15
meaningless as all anarchists are anti-capitalist. Thus the terms used
16
to describe each "school" in his FAQ are biased (those whom Caplan
17
calls "Left anarchists" do not use that term, usually preferring
18
"social anarchist" to distinguish themselves from individualist
19
anarchists like Tucker).
20
21
Caplan also frames the debate only around issues which he is
22
comfortable with. For example, when discussing "left anarchist" ideas
23
he states that "A key value in this line of anarchist thought is
24
egalitarianism, the view that inequalities, especially of wealth and
25
power, are undesirable, immoral, and socially contingent." This,
26
however, is not why anarchists are egalitarians. Anarchists oppose
27
inequalities because they undermine and restrict individual and social
28
freedom.
29
30
Taking another example, under the question, "How would left-anarchy
31
work?", Caplan fails to spell out some of the really obvious forms of
32
anarchist thought. For example, the works of Bookchin, Kropotkin,
33
Bakunin and Proudhon are not discussed in any detail. His vague and
34
confusing prose would seem to reflect the amount of thought that he has
35
put into it. Being an "anarcho"-capitalist, Caplan concentrates on the
36
economic aspect of anarchism and ignores its communal side. The
37
economic aspect of anarchism he discusses is anarcho-syndicalism and
38
tries to contrast the confederated economic system explained by one
39
anarcho-syndicalist with Bakunin's opposition to Marxism. Unfortunately
40
for Caplan, Bakunin is the source of anarcho-syndicalism's ideas on a
41
confederation of self-managed workplaces running the economy.
42
Therefore, to state that "many" anarchists "have been very sceptical of
43
setting up any overall political structure, even a democratic one, and
44
focused instead on direct worker control at the factory level" is
45
simply false. The idea of direct local control within a confederated
46
whole is a common thread through anarchist theory and activity, as any
47
anarchist could tell you.
48
49
Lastly, we must note that after Caplan posted his FAQ to the
50
"anarchy-list," many of the anarchists on that list presented numerous
51
critiques of the "anarcho"-capitalist theories and of the ideas
52
(falsely) attributed to social anarchists in the FAQ, which he chose to
53
ignore (that he was aware of these postings is asserted by the fact he
54
e-mailed one of the authors of this FAQ on the issue that anarchists
55
never used or use the term "left-anarchist" to describe social
56
anarchism. He replied by arguing that the term "left-anarchist" had
57
been used by Michel Foucault, who never claimed to be an anarchist, in
58
one of his private letters! Strangely, he never posted his FAQ to the
59
list again).
60
61
Therefore, as can be seen from these few examples, Caplan's "FAQ" is
62
blatantly biased towards "anarcho-capitalism" and based on the
63
mis-characterisations and the dis-emphasis on some of the most
64
important issues between "anarcho-capitalists" and anarchists. It is
65
clear that his viewpoint is anything but impartial.
66
67
This section will highlight some of the many errors and distortions in
68
that FAQ. Numbers in square brackets refer to the corresponding
69
sections Caplan's FAQ.
70
71
1 Is anarchism purely negative?
72
73
[1]. Caplan, consulting his American Heritage Dictionary, claims:
74
"Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government,
75
is bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it
76
would be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold."
77
78
The last sentence is ridiculous. If we look at the works of Tucker,
79
Kropotkin, Proudhon and Bakunin (for example) we discover that we can,
80
indeed list one more "belief that all anarchists hold." This is
81
opposition to exploitation, to usury (i.e. profits, interest and rent).
82
For example, Tucker argued that "Liberty insists. . . [on] the
83
abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more
84
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man."
85
[cited in Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American
86
Individualism by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] Such a position is one that
87
Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would agree with.
88
89
In other words, anarchists hold two beliefs -- opposition to government
90
and opposition to exploitation. Any person which rejects either of
91
these positions cannot be part of the anarchist movement. In other
92
words, an anarchist must be against capitalism in order to be a true
93
anarchist.
94
95
Moreover it is not at all difficult to find a more fundamental
96
"defining tenet" of anarchism. We can do so merely by analysing the
97
term "an-archy," which is composed of the Greek words an, meaning "no"
98
or "without," and arche, meaning literally "a ruler," but more
99
generally referring to the principle of rulership, i.e. hierarchical
100
authority. Hence an anarchist is someone who advocates abolishing the
101
principle of hierarchical authority -- not just in government but in
102
all institutions and social relations.
103
104
Anarchists oppose the principle of hierarchical authority because it is
105
the basis of domination, which is not only degrading in itself but
106
generally leads to exploitation and all the social evils which follow
107
from exploitation, from poverty, hunger and homelessness to class
108
struggle and armed conflict.
109
110
Because anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, domination, and
111
exploitation, they naturally seek to eliminate all hierarchies, as the
112
very purpose of hierarchy is to facilitate the domination and (usually)
113
exploitation of subordinates.
114
115
The reason anarchists oppose government, then, is because government is
116
one manifestation of the evils of hierarchical authority, domination,
117
and exploitation. But the capitalist workplace is another. In fact, the
118
capitalist workplace is where most people have their most frequent and
119
unpleasant encounters with these evils. Hence workers' control -- the
120
elimination of the hierarchical workplace through democratic
121
self-management -- has been central to the agenda of classical and
122
contemporary anarchism from the 19th century to the present. Indeed,
123
anarchism was born out of the struggle of workers against capitalist
124
exploitation.
125
126
To accept Caplan's definition of anarchism, however, would mean that
127
anarchists' historical struggle for workers' self-management has never
128
been a "genuine" anarchist activity. This is clearly a reductio ad
129
absurdum of that definition.
130
131
Caplan has confused a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
132
Opposition to government is a necessary condition of anarchism, but not
133
a sufficient one. To put it differently, all anarchists oppose
134
government, but opposition to government does not automatically make
135
one an anarchist. To be an anarchist one must oppose government for
136
anarchist reasons and be opposed to all other forms of hierarchical
137
structure.
138
139
To understand why let use look to capitalist property. Murray Rothbard
140
argues that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate
141
decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."
142
[The Ethics of Liberty, p. 173] Defence firms would be employed to
143
enforce those decisions (i.e. laws and rules). No real disagreement
144
there. What is illuminating is Rothbard's comments that the state
145
"arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making
146
power, over a given area territorial area" [Op. Cit. , p. 170] Which,
147
to state the obvious, means that both the state and property is marked
148
by an "ultimate decision-making power" over their territory. The only
149
"difference" is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e.
150
"justly" acquired) and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force).
151
In reality of course, the modern distribution of property is just as
152
much a product of past force as is the modern state. In other words,
153
the current property owners have acquired their property in the same
154
unjust fashion as the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other.
155
Rothbard (and "anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have it
156
both ways.
157
158
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
159
essentially the same thing:
160
161
"If the State may be said too properly own its territory, then it is
162
proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in
163
that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property
164
because there is no private property in its area, because it really
165
owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its
166
subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does
167
any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his
168
property." [Op. Cit., p. 170]
169
170
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants to
171
maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
172
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
173
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According to
174
Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the "ultimate
175
decision-making power" over an area) and act like a state (i.e. "make
176
rules for everyone" who lives in an area, i.e. govern them) but not be
177
a state. This not a viable position for obvious reasons.
178
179
In capitalism, property and possession are opposites -- as Proudhon
180
argued in What is Property?. Under possession, the "property" owner
181
exercises "ultimate decision-making power" over themselves as no-one
182
else uses the resource in question. This is non-hierarchical. Under
183
capitalism, however, use and ownership are divided. Landlords and
184
capitalists give others access to their property while retaining power
185
over it and so the people who use it. This is by nature hierarchical.
186
Little wonder Noam Chomsky argued that a "consistent anarchist must
187
oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage
188
slavery which is a component of this system as incompatible with the
189
principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control
190
of the producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", For Reasons of State, p. 158]
191
192
Thus a true anarchist must oppose both state and capitalism as they
193
generate the same hierarchical social relationships (as recognised by
194
Rothbard but apparently subjected to "doublethink"). As
195
"anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose capitalist property they cannot be
196
anarchists -- they support a very specific form of archy, that of the
197
capitalist/landlord over working class people.
198
199
Self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose government for
200
anarchist reasons. That is, they oppose it not because it is a
201
manifestation of hierarchical authority, but because government
202
authority often conflicts with capitalists' authority over the
203
enterprises they control. By getting rid of government with its minimum
204
wage laws, health and safety requirements, union rights laws,
205
environmental standards, child labour laws, and other inconveniences,
206
capitalists would have even more power to exploit workers than they
207
already do. These consequences of "anarcho"-capitalism are
208
diametrically opposed to the historically central objective of the
209
anarchist movement, which is to eliminate capitalist exploitation.
210
211
We must conclude, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists
212
at all. In reality they are capitalists posing as anarchists in order
213
to attract support for their laissez-faire economic project from those
214
who are angry at government. This scam is only possible on the basis of
215
the misunderstanding perpetrated by Caplan: that anarchism means
216
nothing more than opposition to government.
217
218
Better definitions of anarchism can be found in other reference works.
219
For example, in Grollier's Online Encyclopedia we read: "Anarchism
220
rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as
221
well as political." According to this more historically and
222
etymologically accurate definition, "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form
223
of anarchism, since it does not reject hierarchical authority in the
224
economic sphere (which has been the area of prime concern to anarchists
225
since day one). Hence it is bogus anarchism.
226
227
2 Anarchism and Equality
228
229
[5.] On the question "What major subdivisions may be made among
230
anarchists?" Caplan writes:
231
232
"Unlike the left-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists generally place
233
little or no value on equality, believing that inequalities along
234
all dimensions -- including income and wealth -- are not only
235
perfectly legitimate so long as they 'come about in the right way,'
236
but are the natural consequence of human freedom."
237
238
This statement is not inaccurate as a characterisation of
239
"anarcho"-capitalist ideas, but its implications need to be made clear.
240
"Anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value on equality --
241
particularly economic equality -- because they know that under their
242
system, where capitalists would be completely free to exploit workers
243
to the hilt, wealth and income inequalities would become even greater
244
than they are now. Thus their references to "human freedom" as the way
245
in which such inequalities would allegedly come about means "freedom of
246
capitalists to exploit workers;" it does not mean "freedom of workers
247
from capitalist exploitation."
248
249
But "freedom to exploit workers" has historically been the objective
250
only of capitalists, not anarchists. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalism
251
again shows itself to be nothing more than capitalism attempting to
252
pass itself off as part of the anarchist movement -- a movement that
253
has been dedicated since its inception to the destruction of
254
capitalism! One would have to look hard to find a more audacious fraud.
255
256
As we argue in [1]section 2.1 of the appendix [2]"Is
257
'anarcho'-capitalism a type of anarchism?" the claim that inequalities
258
are irrelevant if they "come about the right way" ignores the reality
259
of freedom and what is required to be free. To see way we have to
260
repeat part of our argument from that section and look at Murray
261
Rothbard's (a leading "anarcho"-capitalist icon) analysis of the
262
situation after the abolition of serfdom in Russia and slavery in
263
America. He writes:
264
265
"The bodies of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they
266
had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of
267
their former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their
268
hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once
269
more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and
270
slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its
271
fruits." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 74]
272
273
However, contrast this with Rothbard's (and Caplan's) claims that if
274
market forces ("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of free
275
tenants or wage-labourers then these labourers and tenants are free
276
(see, for example, The Ethics of Liberty, pp. 221-2 on why "economic
277
power" within capitalism does not, in fact, exist). But the labourers
278
dispossessed by market forces are in exactly the same situation as the
279
former serfs and slaves. Rothbard sees the obvious "economic power" in
280
the later case, but denies it in the former. But the conditions of the
281
people in question are identical and it is these conditions that
282
horrify us and create social relationships because on subordination,
283
authority and oppression rather than freedom. It is only ideology that
284
stops Rothbard and Caplan drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical
285
conditions produce identical social relationships and so if the
286
formally "free" ex-serfs are subject to "economic power" and "masters"
287
then so are the formally "free" labourers within capitalism! Both sets
288
of workers may be formally free, but their circumstances are such that
289
they are "free" to "consent" to sell their freedom to others (i.e.
290
economic power produces relationships of domination and unfreedom
291
between formally free individuals).
292
293
Thus inequalities that "come about in the right way" restrict freedom
294
just as much as inequalities that do not. If the latter restricts
295
liberty and generate oppressive and exploitative social relationships
296
then so do the former. Thus, if we are serious about individuality
297
liberty (rather than property) we must look at inequalities and what
298
generate them.
299
300
One last thing. Caplan states that inequalities in capitalism are "the
301
natural consequence of human freedom." They are not, unless you
302
subscribe to the idea that capitalist property rights are the basis of
303
human freedom. However, the assumption that capitalist property rights
304
are the best means to defend individual liberty can be easily seen to
305
be flawed just from the example of the ex-slaves and ex-serfs we have
306
just described. Inequalities resulting from "voluntary exchanges" in
307
the capitalist market can and do result in the denial of freedom, thus
308
suggesting that "property" and liberty are not natural consequences of
309
each other.
310
311
To state the obvious, private property (rather than possession) means
312
that the non-property owner can gain access to the resource in question
313
only when they agree to submit to the property owner's authority (and
314
pay tribute for the privilege of being bossed about). This aspect of
315
property (rightly called "despotism" by Proudhon) is one which
316
right-libertarians continually fail to highlight when they defend it as
317
the paradigm of liberty.
318
319
3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
320
321
[7.] In this section ("Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?")
322
Caplan writes:
323
324
"Outside of the Anglo-American political culture, there has been a
325
long and close historical relationship between the more orthodox
326
socialists who advocate a socialist government, and the anarchist
327
socialists who desire some sort of decentralised, voluntary
328
socialism. The two groups both want to severely limit or abolish
329
private property..."
330
331
For Caplan to claim that anarchism is not the same thing as socialism,
332
he has to ignore anarchist history. For example, the Individualist
333
anarchists called themselves "socialists," as did social anarchists.
334
Indeed, Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie stated that
335
"Anarchism is voluntary socialism" [Anarchism: What it is and What it
336
is Not) and wanted to limit private property in many ways (for example,
337
"the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so forth -- should not be
338
held as private property and subject to being held by the individual
339
for speculative purposes, that use of these things shall be the only
340
valid title, and that each person has an equal right to the use of all
341
these things." [What is Socialism?]). Therefore, within the
342
"Anglo-American political culture," all types of anarchists considered
343
themselves part of the socialist movement. This can be seen not only
344
from Kropotkin's or Bakunin's work, but also in Tucker's (see Instead
345
of a Book). So to claim that the "Anglo-American" anarchists did not
346
have "a long and close historical relationship" with the wider
347
socialist movement is simply false.
348
349
The statement that anarchists want to severely limit or abolish
350
"private property" is misleading if it is not further explained. For
351
the way it stands, it sounds like anarchism is just another form of
352
coercive "state" (i.e. a political entity that forcibly prevents people
353
from owning private property), whereas this is far from the case.
354
355
Firstly, anarchists are not against "private property" in the sense
356
personal belongings. "Anarchists," points out Nicholas Walter, "are in
357
favour of the private property which cannot be used by one person to
358
exploit another -- those personal possessions which we accumulate from
359
childhood and which become part of ours." ["About Anarchism", in
360
Reinventing Anarchy, p. 49] Kropotkin makes the anarchist position
361
clear when he wrote that we "do not want to rob any one of his coat"
362
but expropriation "must apply to everything that enables any man [or
363
woman] -- by he financier, mill owner, or landlord -- to appropriate
364
the product of others' toil." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 61]
365
366
In effect, Caplan is confusing two very different kinds of "private
367
property", of which one rests on usefulness to an individual, the other
368
on the employment (and so exploitation) of the labour of others. The
369
latter produces social relations of domination between individuals,
370
while the former is a relationship between people and things. As
371
Proudhon argued, possession becomes property only when it also serves
372
as means of exploitation and subjection of other people. But failing to
373
distinguish these radically different forms of "private property"
374
Caplan distorts the anarchist position.
375
376
Secondly, it is not that anarchists want to pass laws making private
377
property (in the second, exploitative, sense) illegal. Rather they want
378
to restructure society in such a way that the means of production are
379
freely available for workers to use. This does not mean "anarchist
380
police" standing around with guns to prohibit people from owning
381
private property. Rather, it means dismantling the coercive state
382
agencies that make private property possible, i.e., the departments of
383
real police who now stand around with guns protecting private property.
384
385
Once that occurs, anarchists maintain that capitalism would be
386
impossible, since capitalism is essentially a monopoly of the means of
387
production, which can only be maintained by organised coercion. For
388
suppose that in an anarchist society someone (call him Bob) somehow
389
acquires certain machinery needed to produce widgets (a doubtful
390
supposition if widget-making machines are very expensive, as there will
391
be little wealth disparity in an anarchist society). And suppose Bob
392
offers to let workers with widget-making skills use his machines if
393
they will pay him "rent," i.e. allow him to appropriate a certain
394
amount of the value embodied in the widgets they produce. The workers
395
will simply refuse, choosing instead to join a widget-making collective
396
where they have free access to widget-making machinery, thus preventing
397
Bob from living parasitically on their labour. Thus Kropotkin:
398
399
"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs
400
from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society need
401
not fear the advent of a Rothschild [or any other millionaire] who
402
would settle in its midst. If every member of the community knows
403
that after a few hours of productive toil he [or she] will have a
404
right to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and to those
405
deeper sources of enjoyment which art and science offer to all who
406
seek them, he [or she] will not sell his strength. . . No one will
407
volunteer to work for the enrichment of your Rothschild." [Op. Cit.,
408
p. 61]
409
410
In this scenario, private property was "abolished," but not through
411
coercion. Indeed, it was precisely the abolition of organised coercion
412
that allowed private property to be abolished.
413
414
4 Anarchism and dissidents
415
416
[9.] On the question "How would left-anarchy work?" Caplan writes:
417
418
"Some other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are quite
419
unclear. Whether dissidents who despised all forms of communal
420
living would be permitted to set up their own inegalitarian
421
separatist societies is rarely touched upon. Occasionally
422
left-anarchists have insisted that small farmers and the like would
423
not be forcibly collectivised, but the limits of the right to refuse
424
to adopt an egalitarian way of life are rarely specified."
425
426
This is a straw man. "Left" (i.e. real) anarchist theory clearly
427
implies and explicitly states the answer to these questions.
428
429
Firstly, on the issue of "separatist" societies. Anarchist thinkers
430
have always acknowledged that there would be multitude of different
431
communities after a revolution (and not just Caplan's "inegalitarian"
432
ones). Marx, for example, mocked Bakunin for arguing that only
433
revolutionary communes would federate together and that this would not
434
claim any right to govern others (see Bakunin's "Letter to Albert
435
Richards", Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 179] Kropotkin stated
436
that "the point attained in the socialisation of wealth will not be
437
everywhere the same" and "[s]ide by side with the revolutionised
438
communes . . . places would remain in an expectant attitude, and would
439
go on living on the Individualist system." [The Conquest of Bread, p.
440
81] While he was hopeful that "everywhere [would be] more or less
441
Socialism" he recognised that the revolution would not conform to "any
442
particular rule" and would differ in different areas -- "in one country
443
State Socialist, in another Federation" and so on. [Op. Cit., p. 82]
444
Malatesta made the same point, arguing that "after the revolution"
445
there would be "relations between anarchist groupings and those living
446
under some kind of authority, between communist collectives and those
447
living in an individualistic way." This is because anarchism "cannot be
448
imposed". [Life and Ideas, p. 173, p. 21]
449
450
Needless to say, these "separatist societies" (which may or may not be
451
"inegalitarian") would not be anarchist societies. If a group of people
452
wanted to set up a capitalist, Marxist, Georgist or whatever kind of
453
community then their right would be respected (although, of course,
454
anarchists would seek to convince those who live in such a regime of
455
the benefits of anarchism!). As Malatesta pointed out, "free and
456
voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the
457
possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist,
458
individualist -- as one wishes, always on condition that there is no
459
oppression or exploitation of other" as "it is clear that all, and
460
only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and recognise that each
461
individual has an equal right to the means of production and to the
462
full enjoyment of the product of his own labour, have anything in
463
common with anarchism." [Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 33]
464
465
Ultimately, "it is not a question of right and wrong; it is a question
466
of freedom for everybody. . . None can judge with certainty who is
467
right and who is wrong, who is nearest to the truth, or which is the
468
best way to achieve the greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom
469
coupled with experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and
470
what is best; and there can be no freedom if there is the denial of the
471
freedom to err." [Op. Cit., p. 49]
472
473
Secondly, regarding "dissidents" who wanted to set up their own
474
"inegalitarian separatist societies," if the term "inegalitarian"
475
implies economic inequalities due to private property, the answer is
476
that private property requires some kind of state, if not a public
477
state then private security forces ("private-state capitalism"), as
478
advocated by "anarcho"-capitalists, in order to protect private
479
property. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists are asking if an anarchist
480
society will allow the existence of states. Of course, in the territory
481
that used to be claimed by a nation state a whole host of communities
482
and societies will spring up -- but that does not make the
483
non-anarchist ones anarchist!
484
485
Thus suppose that in a hypothetical libertarian socialist society, Bob
486
tries to set up private security forces to protect certain means of
487
production, e.g. farmland. By the hypothesis, if Bob merely wanted to
488
work the land himself, there would be no reason for him go to the
489
trouble of creating a private state to guard it, because use-rights
490
guarantee that he has free access to the productive assets he needs to
491
make a living. Thus, the only plausible reason Bob could have for
492
claiming and guarding more farmland than he could use himself would be
493
a desire to create a monopoly of land in order to exact tribute from
494
others for the privilege of using it. But this would be an attempt to
495
set up a system of feudal exploitation in the midst of a free
496
community. Thus the community is justified in disarming this would-be
497
parasite and ignoring his claims to "own" more land than he can use
498
himself.
499
500
In other words, there is no "right" to adopt an "inegalitarian way of
501
life" within a libertarian community, since such a right would have to
502
be enforced by the creation of a coercive system of enslavement, which
503
would mean the end of the "libertarian" community. To the contrary, the
504
members of such a community have a right, guaranteed by "the people in
505
arms," to resist such attempts to enslave them.
506
507
The statement that "left" anarchists have "occasionally" insisted that
508
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivised is a
509
distortion of the facts. No responsible left libertarian advocates
510
forced collectivisation, i.e. compelling others to join collectives.
511
Self-employment is always an option. This can be seen from Bakunin's
512
works [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200], Kropotkin's [The Conquest of
513
Bread, p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5] and Malatesta's [Life
514
and Ideas, p. 99, p. 103]. So the anarchist opposition to forced
515
collectivisation has always existed and, for anyone familiar with the
516
ideas of social anarchism, very well know. Thus during the Spanish
517
Revolution, small farmers who did not wish to join collective farms
518
were allowed to keep as much land as they could work themselves. After
519
perceiving the advantages of collectives, however, many joined them
520
voluntarily (see Sam Dolgoff, ed., The Anarchist Collectives).
521
522
To claim that social anarchists "occasionally" oppose forced
523
collectivisation is a smear, pure and simple, with little basis in
524
anarchist activity and even less in anarchist theory. Anyone remotely
525
familiar with the literature could not make such a mistake.
526
527
Finally, we should point out that under "anarcho"-capitalism there
528
would be, according to Murray Rothbard, a "basic libertarian law code."
529
Which means that under "anarcho"-capitalism, "egalitarian" communities
530
could only come about within a "inegalitarian" legal framework! Thus,
531
given that everything would be privatised, dissenters could only
532
experiment if they could afford it and accepted the legal system based
533
on capitalist property rights (and, of course, survive the competition
534
of capitalist companies within the capitalist framework). As we have
535
argued in sections [3]B.4 and [4]F.3why
536
should we have to pay the stealers of the earth for the privilege to
537
life our own lives? Caplan, in effect, ignores the barriers to
538
experimentation in his system while distorting the anarchist position.
539
540
5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
541
542
[10.] This section (How would anarcho-capitalism work?) contains
543
Caplan's summary of arguments for "anarcho"-capitalism, which he
544
describes as an offshoot of Libertarianism. Thus:
545
546
"So-called 'minarchist' libertarians such as Nozick have argued that
547
the largest justified government was one which was limited to the
548
protection of individuals and their private property against
549
physical invasion; accordingly, they favour a government limited to
550
supplying police, courts, a legal code, and national defence."
551
552
The first thing to note about this argument is that it is stated in
553
such a way as to prejudice the reader against the left-libertarian
554
critique of private property. The minarchist right-"libertarian," it is
555
said, only wants to protect individuals and their private property
556
against "physical invasion." But, because of the loose way in which the
557
term "property" is generally used, the "private property" of most
558
"individuals" is commonly thought of as personal possessions, i.e.
559
cars, houses, clothing, etc. (For the left-libertarian distinction
560
between private property and possessions, see [5]section B.3.1.)
561
Therefore the argument makes it appear that right libertarians are in
562
favour of protecting personal possessions whereas left-libertarians are
563
not, thus conjuring up a world where, for example, there would be no
564
protection against one's house being "physically invaded" by an
565
intruder or a stranger stealing the shirt off one's back!
566
567
By lumping the protection of "individuals" together with the protection
568
of their "private property," the argument implies that right
569
libertarians are concerned with the welfare of the vast majority of the
570
population, whereas in reality, the vast majority of "individuals" do
571
not own any private property (i.e. means of production) -- only a
572
handful of capitalists do. Moreover, these capitalists use their
573
private property to exploit the working class, leading to
574
impoverishment, alienation, etc., and thus damaging most individuals
575
rather than "protecting" them.
576
577
Caplan goes on:
578
579
"This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic
580
theory, according to which private property and unregulated
581
competition generally lead to both an efficient allocation of
582
resources and (more importantly) a high rate of economic progress."
583
584
Caplan does not mention the obvious problems with this "theory," e.g.
585
that during the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the US there was
586
vast wealth disparity, with an enormous mass of impoverished people
587
living in slums in the major cities -- hardly an "efficient" allocation
588
of resources or an example of "progress." Of course, if one defines
589
"efficiency" as "the most effective means of exploiting the working
590
class" and "progress" as "a high rate of profit for investors," then
591
the conclusion of the "theory" does indeed follow.
592
593
And let us not forget that it is general equilibrium theory which
594
predicts that unregulated competition will produce an efficient
595
allocation of resources. However, as we noted in [6]section C.1, such a
596
model has little to do with any real economy. This means that there is
597
no real reason to assume an efficient outcome of capitalist economies.
598
Concentrations of economic power and wealth can easily skew outcomes to
599
favour the haves over the have-nots (as history again and again shows).
600
601
Moreover, the capitalism can easily lead to resources being allocated
602
to the most profitable uses rather than those which are most needed by
603
individuals. A classic example is in the case of famines. Amartya Sen
604
(who won the 1998 Nobel Prize for economics) developed an "entitlement"
605
approach to the study of famine. This approach starts with the insight
606
that having food available in a country or region does not mean
607
everyone living there is "entitled" to it. In market economies, people
608
are entitled to food according to their ability to produce it for
609
themselves or to pay or swap for it. In capitalist economies, most
610
people are entitled to food only if they can sell their labour/liberty
611
to those who own the means of life (which increases the economic
612
insecurity of wage workers).
613
614
If some group loses its entitlement to food, whether there is a decline
615
in the available supply or not, a famine can occur. This may seem
616
obvious, yet before - and after - Sen, famine studies have remained
617
fixated on the drop in food available instead of whether specific
618
social groups are entitled to it. Thus even a relatively success
619
economy can price workers out of the food market (a depressed economy
620
brings the contradiction between need and profit -- use value and
621
exchange value -- even more to the forefront). This "pricing out" can
622
occur especially if food can get higher prices (and so profits)
623
elsewhere -- for example the Irish famine of 1848 and sub-Saharan
624
famines of the 1980s saw food being exported from famine areas to areas
625
where it could fetch a higher price. In other words, market forces can
626
skew resource allocation away from where it is most needed to where it
627
can generate a profit. As anarchist George Barret noted decades before
628
Sen:
629
630
"Today the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there
631
is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than
632
there is in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in
633
feverish haste to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor
634
law can supply the latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels
635
disposed. That is how it works out." [Objectives to Anarchism]
636
637
In other words, inequality skews resource allocation towards the
638
wealthy. While such a situation may be "efficient allocation of
639
resources" from the perspective of the capitalist, it is hardly so from
640
a social perspective (i.e. one that considers all individual needs
641
rather than "effective demand").
642
643
Furthermore, if we look at the stock market (a key aspect of any
644
capitalist system) we discover a strong tendencies against the
645
efficient allocation of resources. The stock market often experiences
646
"bubbles" and becomes significantly over-valued. An inflated stock
647
market badly distorts investment decisions. For example, if Internet
648
companies are wildly over-valued then the sale of shares of new
649
Internet companies or the providing of start-up capital will drain away
650
savings that could be more productively used elsewhere. The real
651
economy will pay a heavy price from such misdirected investment and,
652
more importantly, resources are not efficiency allocated as the stock
653
market skews resources into the apparently more profitable areas and
654
away from where they could be used to satisfy other needs.
655
656
The stock market is also a source of other inefficiencies. Supporters
657
of "free-market" capitalism always argued that the Stalinist system of
658
central planning created a perverse set of incentives to managers. In
659
effect, the system penalised honest managers and encouraged the flow of
660
dis-information. This lead to information being distorted and resources
661
inefficiently allocated and wasted. Unfortunately the stock market also
662
creates its own set of perverse responses and mis-information. Doug
663
Henwood argues that "something like a prisoners' dilemma prevails in
664
relations between managers and the stock market. Even if participants
665
are aware of an upward bias to earnings estimates, and even if they
666
correct for it, managers still have an incentive to try and fool the
667
market. If you tell the truth, your accurate estimates will be marked
668
down by a sceptical market. So its entirely rational for managers to
669
boost profits in the short term, either through accounting gimmickry or
670
by making only investments with quick paybacks." He goes on to note
671
that "[i]f the markets see high costs as bad, and low costs as good,
672
then firms may shun expensive investments because they will be taken as
673
signs of managerial incompetence. Throughout the late 1980s and early
674
1990s, the stock market rewarded firms announcing write-offs and mass
675
firings -- a bulimic strategy of management -- since the cost cutting
676
was seen as contributing rather quickly to profits. Firms and economies
677
can't get richer by starving themselves, but stock market investors can
678
get richer when the companies they own go hungry. As for the long term,
679
well, that's someone else's problem." [Wall Street, p. 171]
680
681
This means that resources are allocated to short term projects, those
682
that enrich the investors now rather than produce long term growth and
683
benefits later. This results in slower and more unstable investment
684
than less market centred economies, as well as greater instability over
685
the business cycle [Op. Cit., pp. 174-5] Thus the claim that capitalism
686
results in the "efficient" allocation of resources is only true if we
687
assume "efficient" equals highest profits for capitalists. As Henwood
688
summarises, "the US financial system performs dismally at its
689
advertised task, that of efficiently directing society's savings
690
towards their optimal investment pursuits. The system is stupefyingly
691
expensive, gives terrible signals, and has surprisingly little to do
692
with real investment." [Op. Cit., p. 3]
693
694
Moreover, the claim that laissez-faire economies produce a high rate of
695
economic progress can be questioned on the empirical evidence
696
available. For example, from the 1970s onwards there has been a strong
697
tendency towards economic deregulation. However, this tendency has been
698
associated with a slow down of economic growth. For example, "[g]rowth
699
rates, investment rates and productivity rates are all lower now than
700
in the [Keynesian post-war] Golden Age, and there is evidence that the
701
trend rate of growth -- the underlying growth rate -- has also
702
decreased." Before the Thatcher pro-market reforms, the British economy
703
grew by 2.4% in the 1970s. After Thatcher's election in 1979, growth
704
decreased to 2% in the 1980s and to 1.2% in the 1990s. In the USA, we
705
find a similar pattern. Growth was 4.4% in the 1960s, 3.2% in the
706
1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half of the 1990s [Larry
707
Elliot and Dan Atkinson, The Age of Insecurity, p. 236]. Moreover, in
708
terms of inflation-adjusted GDP per capita and productivity, the US had
709
the worse performance out of the US, UK, Japan, Italy, France, Canada
710
and Australia between 1970 and 1995 [Marc-Anfre Pigeon and L. Randall
711
Wray, Demand Constraints and Economic Growth]. Given that the US is
712
usually considered the most laissez-faire out of these 7 countries,
713
Caplan's claim of high progress for deregulated systems seems at odds
714
with this evidence.
715
716
As far as technological innovation goes, it is also not clear that
717
deregulation has aided that process. Much of our modern technology owns
718
its origins to the US Pentagon system, in which public money is
719
provided to companies for military R&D purposes. Once the technology
720
has been proven viable, the companies involved can sell their public
721
subsidised products for private profit. The computer industry (as we
722
point out in [7]section J.4.7) is a classic example of this -- indeed
723
it is unlikely whether we would have computers or the internet if we
724
had waited for capitalists to development them. So whether a totally
725
deregulated capitalism would have as high a rate of technological
726
progress is a moot point.
727
728
So, it seems likely that it is only the assumption that the free
729
capitalist market will generate "an efficient allocation of resources
730
and (more importantly) a high rate of economic progress." Empirical
731
evidence points the other way -- namely, that state aided capitalism
732
provides an approximation of these claims. Indeed, if we look at the
733
example of the British Empire (which pursued a strong free trade and
734
laissez-faire policy over the areas it had invaded) we can suggest that
735
the opposite may be true. After 25 prosperous years of fast growth (3.5
736
per cent), after 1873 Britain had 40 years of slow growth (1.5 per
737
cent), the last 14 years of which were the worse -- with productivity
738
declining, GDP stagnant and home investment halved. [Nicholas Kaldor,
739
Further Essays on Applied Economics, p. 239] In comparison, those
740
countries which embraced protectionism (such as Germany and the USA)
741
industrialised successfully and become competitors with the UK. Indeed,
742
these new competitors grew in time to be efficient competitors of
743
Britain not only in foreign markets but also in Britain's home market.
744
The result was that "for fifty years Britain's GDP grew very slowly
745
relative to the more successful of the newer industrialised countries,
746
who overtook her, one after another, in the volume of manufacturing
747
production and in exports and finally in real income per head." [Op.
748
Cit., p. xxvi] Indeed, "America's growth and productivity rates were
749
higher when tariffs were steep than when they came down." [Larry Elliot
750
and Dan Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 277]
751
752
It is possible to explain almost everything that has ever happened in
753
the world economy as evidence not of the failure of markets but rather
754
of what happens when markets are not able to operate freely. Indeed,
755
this is the right-libertarian position in a nut shell. However, it does
756
seem strange that movements towards increased freedom for markets
757
produce worse results than the old, more regulated, way. Similarly it
758
seems strange that the country that embraced laissez-faire and free
759
trade (Britain) did worse than those which embraced protectionism (USA,
760
Germany, etc.).
761
762
It could always be argued that the protectionist countries had embraced
763
free trade their economies would have done even better. This is, of
764
course, a possibility -- if somewhat unlikely. After all, the argument
765
for laissez-faire and free trade is that it benefits all parties, even
766
if it is embraced unilaterally. That Britain obviously did not benefit
767
suggests a flaw in the theory (and that no country has industrialised
768
without protectionism suggests likewise). Unfortunately, free-market
769
capitalist economics lends itself to a mind frame that ensures that
770
nothing could happen in the real world that would could ever change its
771
supporters minds about anything.
772
773
Free trade, it could be argued, benefits only those who have
774
established themselves in the market -- that is, have market power.
775
Thus Britain could initially benefit from free trade as it was the only
776
industrialised nation (and even its early industrialisation cannot be
777
divorced from its initial mercantilist policies). This position of
778
strength allowed them to dominate and destroy possible competitors (as
779
Kaldor points out, "[w]here the British succeeded in gaining free entry
780
for its goods. . . it had disastrous effects on local manufactures and
781
employment." [Op. Cit., p. xxvi]). This would revert the other country
782
back towards agriculture, an industry with diminishing returns to scale
783
(manufacturing, in contrast, has increasing returns) and ensure
784
Britain's position of power.
785
786
The use of protection, however, sheltered the home industries of other
787
countries and gave them the foothold required to compete with Britain.
788
In addition, Britains continual adherence to free trade meant that a
789
lot of new industries (such as chemical and electrical ones) could not
790
be properly established. This combination contributed to free trade
791
leading to stunted growth, in stark contrast to the arguments of
792
neo-classical economics.
793
794
Of course, we will be accused of supporting protectionism by recounting
795
these facts. That is not the case, as protectionism is used as a means
796
of "proletarianising" a nation (as we discuss in [8]section F.8).
797
Rather we are presenting evidence to refute a claim that deregulated
798
capitalism will lead to higher growth. Thus, we suggest, the history of
799
"actually existing" capitalism indicates that Caplan's claim that
800
deregulated capitalism will result "a high rate of economic progress"
801
may be little more than an assumption. True, it is an assumption of
802
neo-classical economics, but empirical evidence suggests that
803
assumption is as unfounded as the rest of that theory.
804
805
Next we get to the meat of the defence of "anarcho"-capitalism:
806
807
"Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own
808
logic against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state
809
could not be turned over to the free market. And so, the
810
anarcho-capitalist imagines that police services could be sold by
811
freely competitive firms; that a court system would emerge to
812
peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible
813
legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and
814
contract."
815
816
Indeed, the functions in question could certainly be turned over to the
817
"free" market, as was done in certain areas of the US during the 19th
818
century, e.g. the coal towns that were virtually owned by private coal
819
companies. We have already discussed the negative impact of that
820
experiment on the working class in [9]section F.6.2. Our objection is
821
not that such privatisation cannot be done, but that it is an error to
822
call it a form of anarchism. In reality it is an extreme form of
823
laissez-faire capitalism, which is the exact opposite of anarchism. The
824
defence of private power by private police is hardly a move towards the
825
end of authority, nor are collections of private states an example of
826
anarchism.
827
828
Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism does not desire the end of the state,
829
just a change in its form, can be seen from Caplan's own arguments. He
830
states that "the remaining functions of the state" should be "turned
831
over to the free market." Thus the state (and its functions, primarily
832
the defence of capitalist property rights) is privatised and not, in
833
fact, abolished. In effect, the "anarcho"-capitalist seeks to abolish
834
the state by calling it something else.
835
836
Caplan:
837
838
"The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing
839
reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration
840
and mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability
841
to supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of
842
necessity a government monopoly."
843
844
It is questionable that "modern society" as such has increased its
845
reliance on "private security guards, gated communities" and so on.
846
Rather, it is the wealthy who have increased their reliance on these
847
forms of private defence. Indeed it is strange to hear a
848
right-libertarian even use the term "society" as, according to that
849
ideology, society does not exist! Perhaps the term "society" is used to
850
hide the class nature of these developments? As for "gated communities"
851
it is clear that their inhabitants would object if the rest of society
852
gated themselves from them! But such is the logic of such developments
853
-- but the gated communities want it both ways. They seek to exclude
854
the rest of society from their communities while expected to be given
855
access to that society. Needless to say, Caplan fails to see that
856
liberty for the rich can mean oppression for the working class -- "we
857
who belong to the proletaire class, property excommunicates us!"
858
[Proudhon, What is Property?, p. 105]
859
860
That the law code of the state is being defended by private companies
861
is hardly a step towards anarchy. This indicates exactly why an
862
"anarcho"- capitalist system will be a collection of private states
863
united around a common, capitalistic, and hierarchical law code. In
864
addition, this system does not abolish the monopoly of government over
865
society represented by the "general libertarian law code," nor the
866
monopoly of power that owners have over their property and those who
867
use it. The difference between public and private statism is that the
868
boss can select which law enforcement agents will enforce his or her
869
power.
870
871
The threat to freedom and justice for the working class is clear. The
872
thug-like nature of many private security guards enforcing private
873
power is well documented. For example, the beating of protesters by
874
"private cops" is a common sight in anti-motorway campaigns or when
875
animal right activists attempt to disrupt fox hunts. The shooting of
876
strikers during strikes occurred during the peak period of American
877
laissez-faire capitalism. However, as most forms of protest involve the
878
violation of "absolute" property rights, the "justice" system under
879
"anarcho"-capitalism would undoubtedly fine the victims of such attacks
880
by private cops.
881
882
It is also interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalist "hails" what are
883
actually symptoms of social breakdown under capitalism. With increasing
884
wealth disparity, poverty, and chronic high unemployment, society is
885
becoming polarised into those who can afford to live in secure, gated
886
communities and those who cannot. The latter are increasingly
887
marginalised in ghettos and poor neighbourhoods where drug-dealing,
888
prostitution, and theft become main forms of livelihood, with gangs
889
offering a feudalistic type of "protection" to those who join or pay
890
tribute to them. Under "anarcho"-capitalism, the only change would be
891
that drug-dealing and prostitution would be legalised and gangs could
892
start calling themselves "defence companies."
893
894
Caplan:
895
896
"In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government
897
services would take over all legitimate security services. One
898
plausible market structure would involve individuals subscribing to
899
one of a large number of competing police services; these police
900
services would then set up contracts or networks for peacefully
901
handling disputes between members of each others' agencies.
902
Alternately, police services might be 'bundled' with housing
903
services, just as landlords often bundle water and power with rental
904
housing, and gardening and security are today provided to residents
905
in gated communities and apartment complexes."
906
907
This is a scenario designed with the upper classes in mind and a few
908
working class people, i.e. those with some property (for example, a
909
house) -- sometimes labelled the "middle class". But under capitalism,
910
the tendency toward capital concentration leads to increasing wealth
911
polarisation, which means a shrinking "middle class" (i.e. working
912
class with decent jobs and their own homes) and a growing "underclass"
913
(i.e. working class people without a decent job). Ironically enough,
914
America (with one of the most laissez-faire capitalist systems) is also
915
the Western nation with the smallest "middle class" and wealth
916
concentration has steadily increased since the 1970s. Thus the number
917
of people who could afford to buy protection and "justice" from the
918
best companies would continually decrease. For this reason there would
919
be a growing number of people at the mercy of the rich and powerful,
920
particularly when it comes to matters concerning employment, which is
921
the main way in which the poor would be victimised by the rich and
922
powerful (as is indeed the case now).
923
924
Of course, if landlords do "bundle" police services in their contracts
925
this means that they are determining the monopoly of force over the
926
property in question. Tenants would "consent" to the police force and
927
the laws of the landlord in exactly the same way emigrants "consent" to
928
the laws and government of, say, the USA when they move there. Rather
929
than show the difference between statism and capitalism, Caplan has
930
indicated their essential commonality. For the proletarian, property is
931
but another form of state. For this reason anarchists would agree with
932
Rousseau when he wrote that:
933
934
"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions
935
in lands, should impose laws on those who want to establish
936
themselves there, and that he should only allow them to do so on
937
condition that they accept his supreme authority and obey all his
938
wishes; that, I can still conceive. But how can I conceive such a
939
treaty, which presupposes anterior rights, could be the first
940
foundation of law? Would not this tyrannical act contain a double
941
usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that on the
942
liberty of the inhabitants?" [The Social Contract and Discourses, p.
943
316]
944
945
Caplan:
946
947
"The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private
948
police would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect
949
individual rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate
950
will yield to jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for
951
profits. Second, firms will want to develop long-term business
952
relationships, and hence be willing to negotiate in good faith to
953
insure their long-term profitability. And third, aggressive firms
954
would be likely to attract only high-risk clients and thus suffer
955
from extraordinarily high costs (a problem parallel to the
956
well-known 'adverse selection problem' in e.g. medical insurance --
957
the problem being that high-risk people are especially likely to
958
seek insurance, which drives up the price when riskiness is hard for
959
the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a uniform price
960
regardless of risk)."
961
962
The theory that "failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly
963
destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits" can be faulted in
964
two ways. Firstly, if warfare would be bad for profits, what is to stop
965
a large "defence association" from ignoring a smaller one's claim? If
966
warfare were "bad for business," it would be even worse for a small
967
company without the capital to survive a conflict, which could give big
968
"defence associations" the leverage to force compliance with their
969
business interests. Price wars are often bad for business, but
970
companies sometimes start them if they think they can win. Needless to
971
say, demand would exist for such a service (unless you assume a
972
transformation in the "human nature" generated by capitalism -- an
973
unlikely situation and one "anarcho"-capitalists usually deny is
974
required for their system to work). Secondly -- and this is equally, if
975
not more, likely -- a "balance of power" method to stop warfare has
976
little to recommend it from history. This can be seen from the First
977
World War and feudal society.
978
979
What the "anarcho"-capitalist is describing is essentially a system of
980
"industrial feudalism" wherein people contract for "protection" with
981
armed gangs of their choice. Feudal societies have never been known to
982
be peaceful, even though war is always "unprofitable" for one side or
983
the other or both. The argument fails to consider that "defence
984
companies," whether they be called police forces, paramilitaries or
985
full-blown armies, tend to attract the "martial" type of authoritarian
986
personality, and that this type of "macho" personality thrives on and
987
finds its reason for existence in armed conflict and other forms of
988
interpersonal violence and intimidation. Hence feudal society is
989
continually wracked by battles between the forces of opposing warlords,
990
because such conflicts allow the combatants a chance to "prove their
991
manhood," vent their aggression, obtain honours and titles, advance in
992
the ranks, obtain spoils, etc. The "anarcho" capitalist has given no
993
reason why warfare among legalised gangs would not continue under
994
industrial feudalism, except the extremely lame reason that it would
995
not be profitable -- a reason that has never prevented war in any known
996
feudal society.
997
998
It should be noted that the above is not an argument from "original
999
sin." Feudal societies are characterised by conflict between opposing
1000
"protection agencies" not because of the innate depravity of human
1001
beings but because of a social structure based on private property and
1002
hierarchy, which brings out the latent capacities for violence,
1003
domination, greed, etc. that humans have by creating a financial
1004
incentive to be so. But this is not to say that a different social
1005
structure would not bring out latent capacities for much different
1006
qualities like sharing, peaceableness, and co-operation, which human
1007
beings also have. In fact, as Kropotkin argued in Mutual Aid and as
1008
recent anthropologists have confirmed in greater detail, ancient
1009
societies based on communal ownership of productive assets and little
1010
social hierarchy were basically peaceful, with no signs of warfare for
1011
thousands of years.
1012
1013
However, let us assume that such a competitive system does actually
1014
work as described. Caplan, in effect, argues that competition will
1015
generate co-operation. This is due to the nature of the market in
1016
question -- defence (and so peace) is dependent on firms working
1017
together as the commodity "peace" cannot be supplied by one firm.
1018
However, this co-operation does not, for some reason, become collusion
1019
between the firms in question. According to "anarcho"-capitalists this
1020
competitive system not only produces co-operation, it excludes
1021
"defence" firms making agreements to fix monopoly profits (i.e.
1022
co-operation that benefits the firms in question). Why does the market
1023
produce beneficial co-operation to everyone but not collusion for the
1024
firms in question? Collusion is when firms have "business
1025
relationships" and "negotiate in good faith" to insure their
1026
profitability by agreeing not to compete aggressively against each
1027
other in order to exploit the market. Obviously in "anarcho"-capitalism
1028
the firms in question only use their powers for good!
1029
1030
Needless to say, the "anarcho"-capitalist will object and argue that
1031
competition will ensure that collusion will not occur. However, given
1032
that co-operation is required between all firms in order to provide the
1033
commodity "peace" this places the "anarcho"-capitalist in a bind. As
1034
Caplan notes, "aggressive" firms are "likely to attract only high-risk
1035
clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs." From the
1036
perspective of the colluding firms, a new entry into their market is,
1037
by definition, aggressive. If the colluding firms do not co-operate
1038
with the new competitor, then it will suffer from "extraordinarily high
1039
costs" and either go out of business or join the co-operators. If the
1040
new entry could survive in the face of the colluding firms hostility
1041
then so could "bad" defence firms, ones that ignored the market
1042
standards.
1043
1044
So the "anarcho"-capitalist faces two options. Either an "aggressive"
1045
firm cannot survive or it can. If it cannot then the very reason why it
1046
cannot ensures that collusion is built into the market and while the
1047
system is peaceful it is based on an effective monopoly of colluding
1048
firms who charge monopoly profits. This, in effect, is a state under
1049
the "anarcho"-capitalist's definition as a property owner cannot freely
1050
select their own "protection" -- they are limited to the firms (and
1051
laws) provided by the co-operating firms. Or an "aggressive" firm can
1052
survive, violence is commonplace and chaos ensures.
1053
1054
Caplan's passing reference to the "adverse selection problem" in
1055
medical insurance suggests another problem with "anarcho"-capitalism.
1056
The problem is that high-risk people are especially likely to seek
1057
protection, which drives up the price for, as "anarcho"-capitalists
1058
themselves note, areas with high crime levels "will be bad for
1059
profits," as hardware and personnel costs will be correspondingly
1060
higher. This means that the price for "protection" in areas which need
1061
it most will be far higher than for areas which do not need it. As poor
1062
areas are generally more crime afflicted than rich areas,
1063
"anarcho"-capitalism may see vast sections of the population not able
1064
to afford "protection" (just as they may not be about to afford health
1065
care and other essential services). Indeed, "protection services" which
1066
try to provide cheap services to "high-risk" areas will be at an
1067
competitive disadvantage in relation to those who do not, as the
1068
"high-risk" areas will hurt profits and companies without "high-risk"
1069
"customers" could undercut those that have.
1070
1071
Caplan:
1072
1073
"Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that
1074
their 'private police agencies' would be equivalent to today's Mafia
1075
-- the cost advantages of open, legitimate business would make
1076
'criminal police' uncompetitive. (Moreover, they argue, the Mafia
1077
can only thrive in the artificial market niche created by the
1078
prohibition of alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other
1079
victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might kill each other over turf, but
1080
liquor-store owners generally do not.)"
1081
1082
As we have pointed out in [10]section F.6, the "Mafia" objection to
1083
"anarcho"-capitalist defence companies is a red herring. The biggest
1084
problem would not be "criminal police" but the fact that working people
1085
and tenants would subject to the rules, power and laws of the property
1086
owners, the rich would be able to buy better police protection and
1087
"justice" than the poor and that the "general" law code these companies
1088
would defend would be slanted towards the interests and power of the
1089
capitalist class (defending capitalist property rights and the
1090
proprietors power). And as we also noted, such a system has already
1091
been tried in 19th-century and early 20th America, with the result that
1092
the rich reduced the working class to a serf-like existence, capitalist
1093
production undermined independent producers (to the annoyance of
1094
individualist anarchists at the time), and the result was the emergence
1095
of the corporate America that "anarcho"-capitalists say they oppose.
1096
1097
Caplan argues that "liquor-store owners" do not generally kill each
1098
other over turf. This is true (but then again they do not have access
1099
to their own private cops currently so perhaps this could change). But
1100
the company owners who created their own private police forces and
1101
armies in America's past did allow their goons to attack and murder
1102
union organisers and strikers. Let us look at Henry Ford's Service
1103
Department (private police force) in action:
1104
1105
"In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march up to
1106
the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn. . . The machine guns of the
1107
Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company's Service Department
1108
killed [four] and wounded over a score of others. . . Ford was
1109
fundamentally and entirely opposed to trade unions. The idea of
1110
working men questioning his prerogatives as an owner was outrageous.
1111
. . [T]he River Rouge plant. . . was dominated by the autocratic
1112
regime of Bennett's service men. Bennett . . organise[d] and
1113
train[ed] the three and a half thousand private policemen employed
1114
by Ford. His task was to maintain discipline amongst the work force,
1115
protect Ford's property [and power], and prevent unionisation. . .
1116
Frank Murphy, the mayor of Detroit, claimed that 'Henry Ford employs
1117
some of the worst gangsters in our city.' The claim was well based.
1118
Ford's Service Department policed the gates of his plants,
1119
infiltrated emergent groups of union activists, posed as workers to
1120
spy on men on the line. . . Under this tyranny the Ford worker had
1121
no security, no rights. So much so that any information about the
1122
state of things within the plant could only be freely obtained from
1123
ex-Ford workers." [Huw Beynon, Working for Ford, pp. 29-30]
1124
1125
The private police attacked women workers handing out pro-union
1126
handbills and gave them "a serve beating." At Kansas and Dallas
1127
"similar beatings were handed out to the union men." [Op. Cit., p. 34]
1128
This use of private police to control the work force was not unique.
1129
General Motors "spent one million dollars on espionage, employing
1130
fourteen detective agencies and two hundred spies at one time [between
1131
1933 and 1936]. The Pinkerton Detective Agency found anti-unionism its
1132
most lucrative activity." [Op. Cit., p. 32] We must also note that the
1133
Pinkerton's had been selling their private police services for decades
1134
before the 1930s. In the 1870s, they had infiltrated and destroyed the
1135
Molly Maguires (a secret organisation Irish miners had developed to
1136
fight the coal bosses). For over 60 years the Pinkerton Detective
1137
Agency had "specialised in providing spies, agent provocateurs, and
1138
private armed forces for employers combating labour organisations." By
1139
1892 it "had provided its services for management in seventy major
1140
labour disputes, and its 2 000 active agents and 30 000 reserves
1141
totalled more than the standing army of the nation." [Jeremy Brecher,
1142
Strike!, p. 9 and p. 55] With this force available, little wonder
1143
unions found it so hard to survive in the USA. Given that unions could
1144
be considered as "defence" agencies for workers, this suggests a
1145
picture of how "anarcho"-capitalism may work in practice.
1146
1147
It could be argued that, in the end, the union was recognised by the
1148
Ford company. However, this occurred after the New Deal was in place
1149
(which helped the process), after years of illegal activity (by
1150
definition union activism on Ford property was an illegal act) and
1151
extremely militant strikes. Given that the union agreement occurred
1152
nearly 40 years after Ford was formed and in a legal situation
1153
violently at odds with "anarcho"-capitalism (or even minimal statist
1154
capitalism), we would be justified in wondering if unionisation would
1155
ever have occurred at Ford and if Ford's private police state would
1156
ever have been reformed.
1157
1158
Of course, from an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective the only limitation
1159
in the Ford workers' liberty was the fact they had to pay taxes to the
1160
US government. The regime at Ford could not restrict their liberty as
1161
no one forced them to work for the company. Needless to say, an
1162
"anarcho"-capitalist would reject out of hand the argument that no-one
1163
forced the citizen to entry or remain in the USA and so they consented
1164
to taxation, the government's laws and so on.
1165
1166
This is more than a history lesson. Such private police forces are on
1167
the rise again (see "Armed and Dangerous: Private Police on the March"
1168
by Mike Zielinski, Covert Action Quarterly, no. 54, Fall, 1995 for
1169
example). This system of private police (as demonstrated by Ford) is
1170
just one of the hidden aspects of Caplan's comment that the
1171
"anarcho"-capitalist "typically hails modern society's increasing
1172
reliance on private security guards. . . and other demonstrations of
1173
the free market's ability to supply the defensive and legal services
1174
normally assumed to be of necessity a government monopoly."
1175
1176
Needless to say, private police states are not a step forward in
1177
anarchist eyes.
1178
1179
Caplan:
1180
1181
"Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no
1182
objection to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim
1183
that punishment does not deter crime to be the height of naivete.
1184
Traditional punishment might be meted out after a conviction by a
1185
neutral arbitrator; or a system of monetary restitution (probably in
1186
conjunction with a prison factory system) might exist instead."
1187
1188
Let us note first that in disputes between the capitalist class and the
1189
working class, there would be no "neutral arbitrator," because the rich
1190
would either own the arbitration company or influence/control it
1191
through the power of the purse (see [11]section F.6). In addition,
1192
"successful" arbitrators would also be wealthy, therefore making
1193
neutrality even more unlikely. Moreover, given that the laws the
1194
"neutral arbitrator" would be using are based on capitalist property
1195
rights, the powers and privileges of the owner are built into the
1196
system from the start.
1197
1198
Second, the left-libertarian critique of punishment does not rest, as
1199
"anarcho"-capitalists claim, on the naive view that intimidation and
1200
coercion aren't effective in controlling behaviour. Rather, it rests on
1201
the premise that capitalist societies produce large numbers of
1202
criminals, whereas societies based on equality and community ownership
1203
of productive assets do not.
1204
1205
The argument for this is that societies based on private property and
1206
hierarchy inevitably lead to a huge gap between the haves and the
1207
have-nots, with the latter sunk in poverty, alienation, resentment,
1208
anger, and hopelessness, while at the same time such societies promote
1209
greed, ambition, ruthlessness, deceit, and other aspects of competitive
1210
individualism that destroy communal values like sharing, co-operation,
1211
and mutual aid. Thus in capitalist societies, the vast majority of
1212
"crime" turns out to be so-called "crimes against property," which can
1213
be traced to poverty and the grossly unfair distribution of wealth.
1214
Where the top one percent of the population controls more wealth than
1215
the bottom 90 percent combined, it is no wonder that a considerable
1216
number of those on the bottom should try to recoup illegally some of
1217
the mal-distributed wealth they cannot obtain legally. (In this they
1218
are encouraged by the bad example of the ruling class, whose parasitic
1219
ways of making a living would be classified as criminal if the
1220
mechanisms for defining "criminal behaviour" were not controlled by the
1221
ruling class itself.) And most of the remaining "crimes against
1222
persons" can be traced to the alienation, dehumanisation, frustration,
1223
rage, and other negative emotions produced by the inhumane and unjust
1224
economic system.
1225
1226
Thus it is only in our societies like ours, with their wholesale
1227
manufacture of many different kinds of criminals, that punishment
1228
appears to be the only possible way to discourage "crime." From the
1229
left-libertarian perspective, however, the punitive approach is a
1230
band-aid measure that does not get to the real root of the problem -- a
1231
problem that lies in the structure of the system itself. The real
1232
solution is the creation of a non-hierarchical society based on
1233
communal ownership of productive assets, which, by eliminating poverty
1234
and the other negative effects of capitalism, would greatly reduce the
1235
incidence of criminal behaviour and so the need for punitive
1236
countermeasures.
1237
1238
Finally, two more points on private prisons. Firstly, as to the
1239
desirability of a "prison factory system," we will merely note that,
1240
given the capitalist principle of "grow-or-die," if punishing crime
1241
becomes a business, one can be sure that those who profit from it will
1242
find ways to ensure that the "criminal" population keeps expanding at a
1243
rate sufficient to maintain a high rate of profit and growth. After
1244
all, the logic of a "prison factory system" is self-defeating. If the
1245
aim of prison is to deter crime (as some claim) and if a private prison
1246
system will meet that aim, then a successful private prison system will
1247
stop crime, which, in turn, will put them out of business! Thus a
1248
"prison factory system" cannot aim to be efficient (i.e. stop crime).
1249
1250
Secondly, Caplan does not mention the effect of prison labour on the
1251
wages, job conditions and market position of workers. Having a sizeable
1252
proportion of the working population labouring in prison would have a
1253
serious impact on the bargaining power of workers. How could workers
1254
outside of prison compete with such a regime of labour discipline
1255
without submitting to prison-like conditions themselves?
1256
Unsurprisingly, US history again presents some insight into this. As
1257
Noam Chomsky notes, the "rapid industrial development in the
1258
southeastern region [of America] a century ago was based on (Black)
1259
convict labour, leased to the highest bidder." Chomsky quotes expert
1260
Alex Lichtenstein comments that Southern Industrialists pointed out
1261
that convict labour was "more reliable and productive than free labour"
1262
and that it overcomes the problem of labour turnover and instability.
1263
It also "remove[d] all danger and cost of strikes" and that it lowers
1264
wages for "free labour" (i.e. wage labour). The US Bureau of Labor
1265
reported that "mine owners [in Alabama] say they could not work at a
1266
profit without the lowering effect in wages of convict-labour
1267
competition." [The Umbrella of US Power, p. 32]
1268
1269
Needless to say, Caplan fails to mention this aspect of
1270
"anarcho"-capitalism (just as he fails to mention the example of Ford's
1271
private police state). Perhaps an "anarcho"-capitalist will say that
1272
prison labour will be less productive than wage labour and so workers
1273
have little to fear, but this makes little sense. If wage labour is
1274
more productive then prison labour will not find a market (and then
1275
what for the prisoners? Will profit-maximising companies really invest
1276
in an industry with such high over-heads as maintaining prisoners for
1277
free?). Thus it seems more than likely that any "prison-factory system"
1278
will be as productive as the surrounding wage-labour ones, thus forcing
1279
down their wages and the conditions of labour. For capitalists this
1280
would be ideal, however for the vast majority a different conclusion
1281
must be drawn.
1282
1283
Caplan:
1284
1285
"Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems
1286
from the apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law
1287
anarchism, and David Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard
1288
puts more emphasis on the need for a generally recognised
1289
libertarian legal code (which he thinks could be developed fairly
1290
easily by purification of the Anglo-American common law), whereas
1291
Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of plural legal
1292
systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands of
1293
different elements of the population. The difference, however, is
1294
probably overstated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for
1295
consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of
1296
the law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of
1297
property right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And
1298
Friedman admits that 'focal points' including prevalent norms are
1299
likely to circumscribe and somewhat standardise the menu of
1300
available legal codes."
1301
1302
The argument that "consumer demand" would determine a "philosophically
1303
neutral" content of the law cannot be sustained. Any law code will
1304
reflect the philosophy of those who create it. Under
1305
"anarcho"-capitalism, as we have noted (see [12]section F.6), the
1306
values of the capitalist rich will be dominant and will shape the law
1307
code and justice system, as they do now, only more so. The law code
1308
will therefore continue to give priority to the protection of private
1309
property over human values; those who have the most money will continue
1310
being able to hire the best lawyers; and the best (i.e. most highly
1311
paid) judges will be inclined to side with the wealthy and to rule in
1312
their interests, out of class loyalty (and personal interests).
1313
1314
Moreover, given that the law code exists to protect capitalist property
1315
rights, how can it be "philosophically neutral" with that basis? How
1316
would "competing" property frameworks co-exist? If a defence agency
1317
allowed squatting and another (hired by the property owner) did not,
1318
there is no way (bar force) a conflict could be resolved. Then the firm
1319
with the most resources would win. "Anarcho"-capitalism, in effect,
1320
smuggles into the foundation of their system a distinctly non-neutral
1321
philosophy, namely capitalism. Those who reject such a basis may end up
1322
sharing the fate of tribal peoples who rejected that system of property
1323
rights, for example, the Native Americans.
1324
1325
In other words, in terms of outcome the whole system would favour
1326
capitalist values and so not be "philosophically neutral." The law
1327
would be favourable to employers rather than workers, manufacturers
1328
rather than consumers, and landlords rather than tenants. Indeed, from
1329
the "anarcho"-capitalist perspective the rules that benefit employers,
1330
landlords and manufacturers (as passed by progressive legislatures or
1331
enforced by direct action) simply define liberty and property rights
1332
whereas the rules that benefit workers, tenants and consumers are
1333
simply an interference with liberty. The rules one likes, in other
1334
words, are the foundations of sacred property rights (and so "liberty,"
1335
as least for the capitalist and landlord), those one does not like are
1336
meddlesome regulation. This is a very handy trick and would not be
1337
worth mentioning if it was not so commonplace in right-libertarian
1338
theory.
1339
1340
We should leave aside the fantasy that the law under
1341
"anarcho"-capitalism is a politically neutral set of universal rules
1342
deduced from particular cases and free from a particular instrumental
1343
or class agenda.
1344
1345
Caplan:
1346
1347
"Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or
1348
worker-owned firms would be penalised or prohibited in an
1349
anarcho-capitalist society. It would be more accurate to state that
1350
while individuals would be free to voluntarily form communitarian
1351
organisations, the anarcho-capitalist simply doubts that they would
1352
be widespread or prevalent."
1353
1354
There is good reason for this doubt. Worker co-operatives would not be
1355
widespread or prevalent in an "anarcho"-capitalist society for the same
1356
reason that they are not widespread or prevalent now: namely, that the
1357
socio-economic, legal, and political systems would be structured in
1358
such as way as to automatically discourage their growth (in addition,
1359
capitalist firms and the rich would also have an advantage in that they
1360
would still own and control the wealth they currently have which are a
1361
result of previous "initiations of force". This would give them an
1362
obvious advantage on the "free-market" -- an advantage which would be
1363
insurmountable).
1364
1365
As we explain in more detail in [13]section J.5.11, the reason why
1366
there are not more producer co-operatives is partly structural, based
1367
on the fact that co-operatives have a tendency to grow at a slower rate
1368
than capitalist firms. This is a good thing if one's primary concern
1369
is, say, protecting the environment, but fatal if one is trying to
1370
survive in a competitive capitalist environment.
1371
1372
Under capitalism, successful competition for profits is the fundamental
1373
fact of economic survival. This means that banks and private investors
1374
seeking the highest returns on their investments will favour those
1375
companies that grow the fastest. Moreover, in co-operatives returns to
1376
capital are less than in capitalist firms. Under such conditions,
1377
capitalist firms will attract more investment capital, allowing them to
1378
buy more productivity-enhancing technology and thus to sell their
1379
products more cheaply than co-operatives. Even though co-operatives are
1380
at least as efficient (usually more so) than their equivalent
1381
capitalist firms, the effect of market forces (particularly those
1382
associated with capital markets) will select against them. This bias
1383
against co-operatives under capitalism is enough to ensure that,
1384
despite their often higher efficiency, they cannot prosper under
1385
capitalism (i.e. capitalism selects the least efficient way of
1386
producing). Hence Caplan's comments hide how the effect of inequalities
1387
in wealth and power under capitalism determine which alternatives are
1388
"widespread" in the "free market"
1389
1390
Moreover, co-operatives within capitalism have a tendency to adapt to
1391
the dominant market conditions rather than undermining them. There will
1392
be pressure on the co-operatives to compete more effectively by
1393
adopting the same cost-cutting and profit-enhancing measures as
1394
capitalist firms. Such measures will include the deskilling of workers;
1395
squeezing as much "productivity" as is humanly possible from them; and
1396
a system of pay differentials in which the majority of workers receive
1397
low wages while the bulk of profits are reinvested in technology
1398
upgrades and other capital expansion that keeps pace with capitalist
1399
firms. But this means that in a capitalist environment, there tend to
1400
be few practical advantages for workers in collective ownership of the
1401
firms in which they work.
1402
1403
This problem can only be solved by eliminating private property and the
1404
coercive statist mechanisms required to protect it (including private
1405
states masquerading as "protection companies"), because this is the
1406
only way to eliminate competition for profits as the driving force of
1407
economic activity. In a libertarian socialist environment, federated
1408
associations of workers in co-operative enterprises would co-ordinate
1409
production for use rather than profit, thus eliminating the competitive
1410
basis of the economy and so also the "grow-or-die" principle which now
1411
puts co-operatives at a fatal economic disadvantage. (For more on how
1412
such an economy would be organised and operated, as well as answers to
1413
objections, see [14]section I.)
1414
1415
And let us not forget what is implied by Caplan's statement that the
1416
"anarcho"-capitalist does not think that co-operative holding of
1417
"property" "would be widespread or prevalent." It means that the vast
1418
majority would be subject to the power, authority and laws of the
1419
property owner and so would not govern themselves. In other words, it
1420
would a system of private statism rather than anarchy.
1421
1422
Caplan:
1423
1424
"However, in theory an 'anarcho-capitalist' society might be filled
1425
with nothing but communes or worker-owned firms, so long as these
1426
associations were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined
1427
voluntarily and capital was obtained with the consent of the owners)
1428
and individuals retained the right to exit and set up corporations
1429
or other profit-making, individualistic firms."
1430
1431
It's interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalists are willing to allow
1432
workers to set up "voluntary" co-operatives so long as the conditions
1433
are retained which ensure that such co-operatives will have difficulty
1434
surviving (i.e. private property and private states), but they are
1435
unwilling to allow workers to set up co-operatives under conditions
1436
that would ensure their success (i.e. the absence of private property
1437
and private states). This reflects the usual vacuousness of the
1438
right-libertarian concepts of "freedom" and "voluntarism."
1439
1440
In other words, these worker-owned firms would exist in and be subject
1441
to the same capitalist "general libertarian law code" and work in the
1442
same capitalist market as the rest of society. So, not only are these
1443
co-operatives subject to capitalist market forces, they exist and
1444
operate in a society defined by capitalist laws. As discussed in
1445
[15]section F.2, such disregard for the social context of human action
1446
shows up the "anarcho" capitalist's disregard for meaningful liberty.
1447
1448
All Caplan is arguing here is that as long as people remain within the
1449
(capitalist) "law code," they can do whatever they like. However, what
1450
determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent
1451
to which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them. This
1452
is as true of an "anarcho"-capitalist society as it is of any other. In
1453
other words, if more and more people reject the basic assumptions of
1454
capitalism, the more coercion against anarchistic tendencies will be
1455
required. Saying that people would be free to experiment under
1456
"anarcho"-capitalist law (if they can afford it, of course) does not
1457
address the issue of changes in social awareness (caused, by example,
1458
by class struggle) which can make such "laws" redundant. So, when all
1459
is said and done, "anarcho"-capitalism just states that as long as you
1460
accept their rules, you are free to do what you like.
1461
1462
How generous of them!
1463
1464
Thus, while we would be allowed to be collective capitalists or
1465
property owners under "anarcho"-capitalists we would have no choice
1466
about living under laws based on the most rigid and extreme
1467
interpretation of property rights available. In other words,
1468
"anarcho"-capitalists recognise (at least implicitly) that there exists
1469
one collective need that needs collective support -- a law system to
1470
define and protects people's rights. Ultimately, as C.B. Macpherson
1471
argues, "Individualism" implies "collectivism" for the "notion that
1472
individualism and 'collectivism' are the opposite ends of a scale along
1473
which states and theories of the state can be arranged . . . is
1474
superficial and misleading. . . . [I]ndividualism . . . does not
1475
exclude but on the contrary demands the supremacy of the state [or law]
1476
over the individual. It is not a question of the more individualism,
1477
the less collectivism; rather, the more through-going the
1478
individualism, the more complete the collectivism. Of this the supreme
1479
illustration is Hobbes's theory." [The Political Theory of Possessive
1480
Individualism, p.256] Under "anarcho"-capitalism the individual is
1481
subject to the laws regarding private property, laws decided in advance
1482
by a small group of ideological leaders. Then real individuals are
1483
expected to live with the consequences as best they can, with the law
1484
being placed ahead of these consequences for flesh and blood people.
1485
The abstraction of the law dominates and devours real individuals, who
1486
are considered below it and incapable of changing it (except for the
1487
worse). This, from one angle, shares a lot with theocracy and very
1488
little with liberty.
1489
1490
Needless to say, Caplan like most (if not all) "anarcho"-capitalists
1491
assume that the current property owners are entitled to their property.
1492
However, as John Stuart Mill pointed out over 100 years ago, the
1493
"social arrangements" existing today "commenced from a distribution of
1494
property which was the result, not of a just partition, or acquisition
1495
by industry, but of conquest and violence . . . [and] the system still
1496
retains many and large traces of its origin." [Principles of Political
1497
Economy, p. 15] Given that (as we point out in [16]section F.1) Murray
1498
Rothbard argues that the state cannot be claimed to own its territory
1499
simply because it did not acquire its property in a "just" manner, this
1500
suggests that "anarcho"-capitalism cannot actually argue against the
1501
state. After all, property owners today cannot be said to have received
1502
their property "justly" and if they are entitled to it so is the state
1503
to its "property"!
1504
1505
But as is so often the case, property owners are exempt from the
1506
analysis the state is subjected to by "anarcho"-capitalists. The state
1507
and property owners may do the same thing (such as ban freedom of
1508
speech and association or regulate individual behaviour) but only the
1509
state is condemned by "anarcho"-capitalism.
1510
1511
Caplan:
1512
1513
"On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all
1514
from the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatised
1515
and opened to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic
1516
behaviour should be done away with."
1517
1518
The "anarcho"-capitalist's professed desire to "do away" with the
1519
"regulation" of economic behaviour is entirely disingenuous. For, by
1520
giving capitalists the ability to protect their exploitative monopolies
1521
of social capital by the use of coercive private states, one is thereby
1522
"regulating" the economy in the strongest possible way, i.e. ensuring
1523
that it will be channelled in certain directions rather than others.
1524
For example, one is guaranteeing that production will be for profit
1525
rather than use; that there will consequently be runaway growth and an
1526
endless devouring of nature based on the principle of "grow or die;"
1527
and that the alienation and deskilling of the workforce will continue.
1528
What the "anarcho"-capitalist really means by "doing away with the
1529
regulation of economic behaviour" is that ordinary people will have
1530
even less opportunity than now to democratically control the rapacious
1531
behaviour of capitalists. Needless to say, the "regulation of personal"
1532
behaviour would not be done away with in the workplace, where the
1533
authority of the bosses would still exist and you would have follow
1534
their petty rules and regulations.
1535
1536
Moreover, regardless of "anarcho"-capitalist claims, they do not, in
1537
fact, support civil liberties or oppose "regulation" of personal
1538
behaviour as such. Rather, they support property owners suppressing
1539
civil liberties on their property and the regulation of personal
1540
behaviour by employers and landlords. This they argue is a valid
1541
expression of property rights. Indeed, any attempts to allow workers
1542
civil liberties or restrict employers demands on workers by state or
1543
union action is denounced as a violation of "liberty" (i.e. the power
1544
of the property owner). Those subject to the denial of civil liberties
1545
or the regulation of their personal behaviour by landlords or employees
1546
can "love it or leave it." Of course, the same can be said to any
1547
objector to state oppression -- and frequently is. This is an
1548
artificial double standard, which labels a restraint by one group or
1549
person in a completely different way than the same restraint by others
1550
simply because one is called "the government" and the other is not.
1551
1552
This denial of civil liberties can be seen from these words by Murray
1553
Rothbard:
1554
1555
"[I]n the profoundest sense there are no rights but property rights
1556
. . . Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to
1557
say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where
1558
does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on
1559
property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right
1560
only either on his own property or on the property of someone who
1561
has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him in the
1562
premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate 'right
1563
to free speech'; there is only a man's property right: the right to
1564
do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with
1565
other property owners." [Murray Rothbard, Power and Market, p. 176]
1566
1567
Of course, Rothbard fails to see that for the property-less such a
1568
regime implies no rights whatsoever. It also means the effective end of
1569
free speech and free association as the property owner can censor those
1570
on their property (such as workers or tenants) and ban their
1571
organisations (such as unions). Of course, in his example Rothbard
1572
looks at the "trespasser," not the wage worker or the tenant (two far
1573
more common examples in any modern society). Rothbard is proposing the
1574
dictatorship of the property owner and the end of civil liberties and
1575
equal rights (as property is unequally distributed). He gives this
1576
utter denial of liberty an Orwellian twist by proclaiming the end of
1577
civil liberties by property rights as "a new liberty." Perhaps for the
1578
property-owner, but not the wage worker -- "We who belong to the
1579
proletaire class, property excommunicates us!" [Proudhon, What is
1580
Property?, p. 137]
1581
1582
In effect, right-Libertarians do not care how many restrictions are
1583
placed on you as long as it is not the government doing it. Of course
1584
it will be claimed that workers and tenants "consent" to these controls
1585
(although they reject the notion that citizens "consent" to government
1586
controls by not leaving their state). Here the libertarian case is so
1587
disingenuous as to be offensive. There is no symmetry in the situations
1588
facing workers and firms. To the worker, the loss of a job is often far
1589
more of a threat than the loss of one worker is to the firm. The
1590
reality of economic power leads people to contract into situations
1591
that, although they are indeed the "best" arrangements of those
1592
available, are nonetheless miserable. In any real economy -- and,
1593
remember, the right-libertarian economy lacks any social safety net,
1594
making workers' positions more insecure than now -- the
1595
right-libertarian denial of economic power is a delusion.
1596
1597
Unlike anarchist theory, right-libertarian theory provides no rationale
1598
to protest private power (or even state power if we accept the notion
1599
that the state owns its territory). Relations of domination and
1600
subjection are valid expressions of liberty in their system and,
1601
perversely, attempts to resist authority (by strikes, unions,
1602
resistance) are deemed "initiations of force" upon the oppressor! In
1603
contrast, anarchist theory provides a strong rationale for resisting
1604
private and public domination. Such domination violates freedom and any
1605
free association which dominates any within it violates the basis of
1606
that association in self-assumed obligation (see [17]section A.2.11).
1607
Thus Proudhon:
1608
1609
"The social contract should increase the well-being and liberty of
1610
every citizen. -- If any one-sided conditions should slip in; if one
1611
part of the citizens should find themselves, by the contract,
1612
subordinated and exploited by others, it would no longer be a
1613
contract; it would be a fraud, against which annulment might at any
1614
time by invoked justly." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p.
1615
114]
1616
1617
Caplan's claim that right libertarians oppose regulation of individual
1618
behaviour is simply not true. They just oppose state regulation while
1619
supporting private regulation wholeheartedly. Anarchists, in contrast,
1620
reject both public and private domination.
1621
1622
Caplan:
1623
1624
"Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able
1625
to care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot.
1626
(Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly
1627
increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of
1628
taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.)"
1629
1630
Notice the implication that poverty is now caused by laziness and
1631
irresponsibility rather than by the inevitable workings of an economic
1632
system that requires a large "reserve army of the unemployed" as a
1633
condition of profitability. The continuous "boom" economy of
1634
"anarcho"-capitalist fantasies is simply incompatible with the
1635
fundamental principles of capitalism. To re-quote Michael Kalecki (from
1636
[18]section B.4.4), "[l]asting full employment is not at all to [the]
1637
liking [of business leaders]. The workers would 'get out of hand' and
1638
the 'captains of industry' would be anxious 'to teach them a lesson'"
1639
as "'discipline in the factories' and `political stability' are more
1640
appreciated by business leaders than profits. Their class interest
1641
tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of
1642
view and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal'
1643
capitalist system.". See section C.7 ([19]"What causes the capitalist
1644
business cycle?") for a fuller discussion of this point.
1645
1646
In addition, the claims that a "deregulated economy" would benefit the
1647
poor do not have much empirical evidence to back them up. If we look at
1648
the last quarter of the twentieth century we discover that a more
1649
deregulated economy has lead to massive increases in inequality and
1650
poverty. If a movement towards a deregulated economy has had the
1651
opposite effect than that predicted by Caplan, why should a totally
1652
deregulated economy have the opposite effect. It is a bit like claiming
1653
that while adding black paint to grey makes it more black, adding the
1654
whole tin will make it white!
1655
1656
The reason for increased inequality and poverty as a result of
1657
increased deregulation is simple. A "free exchange" between two people
1658
will benefit the stronger party. This is obvious as the economy is
1659
marked by power, regardless of "anarcho"-capitalist claims, and any
1660
"free exchange" will reflect difference in power. Moreover, a series of
1661
such exchanges will have an accumulative effect, with the results of
1662
previous exchanges bolstering the position of the stronger party in the
1663
current exchange.
1664
1665
Moreover, the claim that removing taxation will increase donations to
1666
charity is someone strange. We doubt that the rich who object to money
1667
being taken from them to pay for welfare will increase the amount of
1668
money they give to others if taxation was abolished. As Peter Sabatini
1669
points out, "anarcho"-capitalists "constantly rant and shriek about how
1670
the government, or the rabble, hinders their Lockean right to amass
1671
capital." [Social Anarchism, no. 23, p.101] Caplan seems to expect them
1672
to turn over a new leaf and give more to that same rabble!
1673
1674
References
1675
1676
1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append132.html#secf21
1677
2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append13.html
1678
3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html
1679
4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF3.html
1680
5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB3.html#secb31
1681
6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC1.html
1682
7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ4.html#secj47
1683
8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html
1684
9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html#secf62
1685
10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html
1686
11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html
1687
12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html
1688
13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj511
1689
14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
1690
15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF2.html
1691
16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF1.html
1692
17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca211
1693
18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html#secb44
1694
19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1