« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to append1.txt
- browse files at revision 1
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 1
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Ed Boraas
- Date: 2002-02-18 16:15:57 UTC
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20020218161557-d05strchdz39bhz0
Tags: upstream-9.5
Import upstream version 9.5
- files added:
added
removed
append1.txt
1
Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
2
3
This appendix exists for one reason, namely to explain why the idea
4
of "anarcho"-capitalism is a bogus one. While we have covered this topic
5
in some detail in section F, we thought that this appendix should be
6
created in order to update and bring together our critique of Bryan Caplan's
7
"Anarchist Theory FAQ." Caplan's FAQ is the main on-line attempt to give the
8
oxymoron of "anarcho"-capitalism some form of justification and so it is
9
worthwhile explaining, using his FAQ as the base, why such an attempt fails.
10
11
As we will prove, Caplan's FAQ fails in its attempt to prove that "anarcho"
12
capitalism can be considered as part of the anarchist movement and in fact
13
his account involves extensive re-writing of history. This appendix is in
14
two parts, a reply to Caplan's FAQ release version 5.2 and an older reply
15
to version 4.1.1 (which was originally section F.10 of the FAQ). The
16
introduction to the reply to version 4.1.1 indicates what most anarchists
17
think of Caplan's FAQ and its claims of "objectivity" so we will not
18
repeat ourselves here.
19
20
We have decided to include these replies in an appendix as they are really
21
an addition to the main body of the FAQ. Parties interested in why Caplan's
22
claims are false can explore this appendix, those who are interested in
23
anarchist politics can read the FAQ without having to also read on-line
24
arguments between anarchists and capitalists.
25
26
We should, perhaps, thank Caplan for allowing us an opportunity of
27
explaining the ideas of such people as Proudhon and Tucker, allowing
28
us to quote them and so bring their ideas to a wider audience and for
29
indicating that anarchism, in all its forms, has always opposed
30
capitalism and always will.
31
32
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
33
FAQ" version 5.2
34
35
1 Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement
36
2 Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
37
3 Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
38
4 Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism
39
5 Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
40
6 Appendix: Defining Anarchism
41
42
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
43
FAQ" version 4.1.1.
44
45
1 Is anarchism purely negative?
46
2 Anarchism and Equality
47
3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
48
4 Anarchism and dissidents
49
5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
50
51
***********************
52
53
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
54
FAQ" version 5.2
55
56
1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
57
58
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying
59
to claim that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the
60
so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often the
61
case with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.
62
63
In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?)
64
of his FAQ, Caplan writes that:
65
66
"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about
67
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
68
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
69
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
70
to maintain this claim."
71
72
He quotes Carl Landauer's _European Socialism: A History of Ideas
73
and Movements_ as evidence:
74
75
"To be sure, there is a difference between
76
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
77
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
78
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists
79
also do not acknowledge any right to society to
80
force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic
81
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
82
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
83
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
84
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
85
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
86
property which is maintained through the power of the
87
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
88
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
89
individual independence, without fully answering the
90
question of how property could be maintained without
91
courts and police."
92
93
Caplan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that before the
94
emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism Landauer found it necessary to
95
distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which he considered
96
to be within the broad socialist tradition."
97
98
However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and
99
social anarchists agree that there *is* a difference between the two
100
schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course, Caplan tries
101
to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists
102
is somehow "evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly,
103
Landauer's book is about *European* Socialism. Individualist anarchism
104
was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly falls within the
105
book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on
106
*two* pages (one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not
107
a socialist? Of course not. It seems likely, therefore, that Landauer is
108
using the common Marxist terminology of defining Marxism as Socialism,
109
while calling other parts of the wider socialist movement by their
110
self-proclaimed names of anarchism, syndicalism and so on. Hardly
111
surprising that Kropotkin is hardly mentioned in a history of
112
"Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).
113
114
As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference
115
between their ideas. Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished
116
between two types of anarchism as well as two types of socialism. Thus
117
Caplan's "interesting point" is just a banality, a common fact which
118
anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history would know.
119
Kropotkin in his justly famous essay on Anarchism for _The Encyclopaedia
120
Britannica_ *also* found it necessary to distinguish two strands of
121
anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims that only one of these strands
122
of anarchism is "within the broad socialist tradition" all we can say
123
is that both Kropotkin *and* Tucker considered their ideas and
124
movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. According
125
to an expert on Individualist Anarchism, Tucker "looked upon anarchism
126
as a branch of the general socialist movement" [James J. Martin, _Men
127
Against the State_, pp. 226-7]. Other writers on Individualist Anarchism
128
have noted the same fact (for example, Tucker "definitely thought of
129
himself a socialist" [William O. Reichart, _Partisans of Freedom: A
130
Study in American Anarchism_, p. 156]). As evidence of the anti-socialist
131
nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's interpretation of Landauer's
132
words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the writings of people like
133
Tucker you will see that they called themselves socialists and considered
134
themselves part of the wider socialist movement. No one familiar with
135
Tucker's works could overlook this fact.
136
137
Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that
138
he was "the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists." [p. 67]
139
Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon into the
140
"anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of Landauer
141
seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some
142
depth in his work within a chapter headed "The three Anticapitalistic
143
Movements." Indeed, he starts his discussion of Proudhon's ideas with
144
the words "In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with Peter Joseph
145
Proudhon." [p. 59] Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that
146
Individualist Anarchism followed Proudhon's economic and political
147
ideas the fact that Landauer states that Proudhon was a socialist
148
implies that Individualist Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist"
149
to use Caplan's term).
150
151
Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves
152
as followers of Proudhon's ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For
153
example, Tucker stated that his journal _Liberty_ was "brought into
154
existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon" and
155
"lives principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich in his
156
"Introduction" to _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_ by Charles
157
A. Dana]
158
159
Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist
160
Anarchism follows Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.
161
162
Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To
163
state the obvious, Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition
164
to *private* property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although
165
Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by
166
talking about possession as "property."
167
168
So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.
169
170
2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
171
172
Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In
173
section 7 (Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?) he states:
174
175
"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy
176
of government ownership of the means of production' -- it seems
177
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
178
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of
179
the strong restriction or abolition of private property,' then
180
the question becomes more complex."
181
182
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are
183
ignorant of socialist ideas! By definition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin
184
are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
185
were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued for its
186
abolition and its replacement with possession. The actual forms of
187
possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought, but
188
the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still there.
189
To quote Dana, in a pamphlet called "a really intelligent, forceful,
190
and sympathetic account of mutual banking" by Tucker, individualist
191
anarchists desire to "destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of
192
property" by mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank
193
of the People"_, p. 46]
194
195
Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a
196
contradiction in Caplan's account. Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that
197
Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
198
property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to
199
that of possession, as Caplan himself seems aware. In other words,
200
even taking his own definitions we find that Proudhon would be considered
201
a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, "all accumulated capital
202
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." [_Selected
203
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings'
204
summary of the anarchist position on private property:
205
206
"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker],
207
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of
208
anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent
209
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege."
210
211
He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with
212
the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced
213
no more than the total product of individual labour." ["Anarchism",
214
_Contemporary Political Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
215
(eds.), p. 132]
216
217
The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even
218
opposition to, or "abolition" of, all forms of property is not one
219
which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
220
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand the
221
identification of socialism as state ownership, as would Individualist
222
Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for opposition or
223
abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism,
224
such a position would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin
225
(and, obviously, such self-proclaimed socialists as Tucker and Labadie).
226
227
For example, in _Act for Yourselves_ Kropotkin explicitly states that
228
a peasant "who is in possession of just the amount of land he can
229
cultivate" would not be expropriated in an anarchist revolution.
230
Similarly for the family "inhabiting a house which affords them just
231
enough space . . . considered necessary for that number of people" and
232
the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would be left
233
alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes the same point in _The Conquest of Bread_
234
[p. 61] Thus, like Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces *private property*
235
with *possession* as the former is "theft" (i.e. it allows exploitation,
236
which "indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation" namely "to everything
237
that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product of
238
other's toil" [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 61])
239
240
Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the abolition
241
of all forms of "private property." Like anarchists, they distinguished
242
between that property which allows exploitation to occur and that which
243
did not. Looking at the _Communist Manifesto_ we find them arguing that
244
the "distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of
245
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property" and that
246
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
247
society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate
248
the labour of others by means of such appropriation." Moreover, they
249
correctly note that "property" has meant different things at different
250
times and that the "abolition of existing property relations is not at
251
all a distinctive feature of Communism" as "[a]ll property relations in
252
the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent
253
upon the change in historical conditions." As an example, they argue
254
that the French Revolution "abolished feudal property in favour of
255
bourgeois property." [_The Manifesto of the Communist Party_, p.47,
256
p. 49 and p. 47]
257
258
Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private
259
property" is *only* true for those kinds of property that are used
260
to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the anarchist
261
position when he wrote that anarchists "are in favour of the private
262
property which cannot be used by one person to exploit another."
263
_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 49] In other words, property which is
264
no longer truly *private* as it is used by those who do not own it.
265
In effect, the key point of Proudhon's _What is Property?_, namely
266
the difference between possession and property. Which means that
267
rather than desire the abolition of all forms of "private property,"
268
socialists (of all kinds, libertarian and authoritarian) desire the
269
abolition of a specific kind of property, namely that kind which
270
allows the exploitation and domination of others. To ignore this
271
distinction is to paint a very misleading picture of what socialism
272
stands for.
273
274
This leaves the "the strong restriction . . . of private
275
property" definition of socialism. Here Caplan is on stronger
276
ground. Unfortunately, by using that definition the Individualist
277
Anarchists, like the Social Anarchists, are included in socialist
278
camp, a conclusion he is trying to avoid. As *every* anarchist
279
shares Proudhon's analysis that "property is theft" and that
280
*possession* would be the basis of anarchism, it means that
281
every anarchist is a socialist (as Labadie always claimed).
282
This includes Tucker and the other Individualist Anarchists.
283
For example, Joseph Labadie stated that "the two great
284
sub-divisions of Socialists" (anarchists and State Socialists)
285
both "agree that the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so
286
forth -- should not be held as private property and subject to
287
being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use
288
of these things shall be the only valid title, and that each
289
person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They
290
all agree that the present social system is one composed of a
291
class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is
292
impossible under such conditions." [_What is Socialism?_] Tucker
293
himself argued that the anarchists' "occupancy and use" title
294
to land and other scare material would involve a change (and,
295
in effect, "restriction") of current (i.e. capitalist) property
296
rights:
297
298
"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property
299
concerns only products. But anything is a product upon which human
300
labour has been expended. It should be stated, however, that in the
301
case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so
302
limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism
303
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual
304
occupancy and use." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 61]
305
306
and so:
307
308
"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be put in
309
force until as a theory it has been accepted as generally . . .
310
seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of ordinary private
311
property." [_Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax_]
312
313
So, as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important
314
aspects of capitalist property rights. Given that the Individualist
315
Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still
316
the largest source of employment this position on land is much
317
more significant than it first appears. In effect, Tucker and
318
the other American Anarchists were advocating a *massive*
319
and *fundamental* change in property-rights, in the social
320
relationships they generated and in American society. This
321
is, in other words, a very "strong restriction" in capitalist
322
property rights (and it is *this* type of property Caplan
323
is referring to, rather than "property" in the abstract).
324
325
However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting"
326
private property is flawed as it does not really reflect
327
anarchist ideas on the subject. Anarchists, in effect,
328
reject the simplistic analysis that because a society (or
329
thinker) accepts "property" that it (or he/she) is capitalistic.
330
This is for two reasons. Firstly, the term "property" has
331
been used to describe a wide range of situations and institutions.
332
Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe a society in
333
which capitalist property rights were *not* enforced. Secondly,
334
and far more importantly, concentrating on "property" rights in
335
the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates.
336
Freedom is product of social interaction, not one of isolation.
337
This means that the social relationships generated in a given
338
society are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has
339
"property" or not. To look at "property" in the abstract is
340
to ignore people and the relationships they create between
341
each other. And it is these relationships which determine
342
whether they are free or not (and so exploited or not).
343
Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition" of
344
socialism avoids the central issue of freedom, of whether
345
a given society generates oppression and exploitation or
346
not. By looking at "property" Caplan ignores liberty, a
347
strange but unsurprising position for a self-proclaimed
348
"libertarian" to take.
349
350
Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking.
351
A "traditional" one of government ownership is hardly that and
352
the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while,
353
in its own way, includes *all* the anarchists in the socialist
354
camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did not intend).
355
356
So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our
357
discussion on property we can instantly reject Caplan's biased
358
and simplistic starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism
359
which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated
360
that "the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer"
361
(to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English socialist, from
362
his essay _Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital_). Tucker
363
stated that "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour
364
should be put in possession of its own," that "the natural wage
365
of labour is its product" (see his essay _State Socialism and
366
Anarchism_). This definition also found favour with Kropotkin
367
who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
368
sense" was an "effort to *abolish* the exploitation of labour
369
by capital." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 169]
370
371
From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again
372
quote Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not to by robbed of the
373
fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour."
374
[_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 145] Because of this socialism also
375
could be defined as "the workers shall own the means of production,"
376
as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer,
377
and, in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most
378
socialists would agree with. The form of this ownership, however,
379
differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
380
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin
381
communal ownership, others like the Social Democrats state ownership
382
and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed in the 19th century, so
383
did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of this
384
process:
385
386
"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave
387
rise to a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the
388
artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives composed of
389
men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations
390
. . . For the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came
391
to mean the formation of a mass organisation that gave factory
392
workers the collective power to expropriate a plant that no
393
single worker could properly own. . . They advocated *public*
394
ownership of the means of production, whether by the state or
395
by the working class organised in trade unions." [_The Third
396
Revolution_, vol. 2, p. 262]
397
398
So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various
399
brands of anarchism. Individualist anarchism is clearly a form
400
of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while
401
communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial
402
(or proletarian) socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe).
403
Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as it does
404
artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and
405
co-operative associations for large-scale industry (which reflects
406
the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). The common
407
feature of all these forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and
408
the notion that "workers shall own the means of production." Or,
409
in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat." [Op. Cit.,
410
p. 179] As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support
411
for "association" (or "associative socialism") "anticipated all
412
those later movements" which demanded "that the economy be
413
controlled neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . .
414
but by the producers" such as "the revolutionary syndicalists"
415
and "the students of 1968." [K. Steven Vincent, _Pierre-Joseph
416
Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism_, p. 165]
417
"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism,"
418
to again quote Proudhon. [Op. Cit., p. 167]
419
420
Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism
421
was based upon exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not
422
have access to the means of production and so had to sell themselves
423
to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing
424
that the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer and
425
opposing the exploitation of labour by capital. To use Tucker's own
426
words:
427
428
"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon
429
the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of
430
the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something
431
that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much
432
opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege . . . every
433
man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What
434
Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to
435
deprive capital of its reward." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 404]
436
437
By ending wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The land to
438
the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The
439
product to the producer" and so "everyone [would] be a proprietor"
440
and so there would be "no more proletaires" (in the words of Ernest
441
Lesigne, quoted favourably by Tucker as part of what he called a
442
"summary exposition of Socialism from the standpoint of Anarchism"
443
[Op. Cit., p. 17, p. 16]). Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be
444
no more and "the product [would go] to the producer." The Individualist
445
Anarchists, as Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, "expected a society
446
of largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
447
between any of them." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 104] In other
448
words, the "abolition of the proletariat" as desired by Proudhon.
449
450
Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure
451
the "product to the producer" and this meant workers owning and
452
controlling the means of production they used ("no more proletaires").
453
He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual
454
banks and other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists
455
followed Proudhon, who "would individualise and associate" the productive
456
and distributive forces in society [as quoted by James J. Martin,
457
_Men Against the State_, p. 228]). Here is Kropotkin on Proudhon's
458
reformist mutualist-socialism:
459
460
"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property
461
is theft', he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense
462
of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand,
463
understood in the limited sense of *possession*, he saw the best
464
protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time
465
he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land,
466
dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to
467
*attain the same end* by rendering capital incapable of earning
468
interest." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlet's_, pp. 290-1 --
469
emphasis added]
470
471
In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society
472
without capitalists and wage slaves ("the same end") but achieved by
473
different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in 1846 he made the
474
same point:
475
476
"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against
477
Property in such a way as to create what you German socialists call
478
*community* and which for the moment I will only go so far as calling
479
*liberty* or *equality.*" [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
480
p. 151]
481
482
In other words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists (namely
483
to abolish capitalism, wage labour and exploitation) but disagreed with
484
the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed himself squarely in this
485
tradition and so could (and did) call himself a socialist. Little
486
wonder Joseph Labadie often said that "All anarchists are socialists,
487
but not all socialists are anarchists." That Caplan tries to ignore
488
this aspect of Individualist Anarchism in an attempt to co-opt it
489
into "anarcho"-capitalism indicates well that his FAQ is not an
490
objective or neutral work.
491
492
Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more fertile
493
ground for individualist anarchism: during the 19th-century, such
494
figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker
495
gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom
496
of contract and private property."
497
498
However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did *not* support private property
499
in the capitalist sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less
500
than Tucker and Spooner, supported free agreement between individuals and
501
groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more interested in the
502
words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings *they* attached
503
to them. Hardly convincing.
504
505
Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:
506
507
"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number
508
of different schools." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
509
Stewart Edwards (ed), p. 177]
510
511
If he did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists
512
were a school of socialism, given their opposition to exploitation and
513
the desire to see its end via their political, economic and social
514
ideas.
515
516
3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
517
518
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best
519
to claim that Proudhon was not really a socialist at all. He states that
520
"Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as a "left anarchist"]
521
although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
522
property would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."
523
524
"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously
525
not -- Bakunin claimed that "Proudhon was the master of us all." According
526
to George Woodcock Kropotkin was one of Proudhon's "confessed disciples."
527
Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-capitalists? Obviously not.
528
What about Tucker? He called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic
529
school of Socialism." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 381] And, as we noted
530
above, the socialist historian Carl Launder considered Proudhon a
531
socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his
532
_History of Socialist Thought_ (and in fact called him one of the "major
533
prophets of Socialism."). What about Marx and Engels, surely they would
534
be able to say if he was a socialist or not? According to Engels,
535
Proudhon was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
536
[Marx and Engels, _Selected Works_, p. 260]
537
538
In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems
539
to place Proudhon outside of the "leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp
540
is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of _The Third Revolution_
541
Bookchin argues that "Proudhon was no socialist" simply because
542
he favoured "private property." [p. 39] However, he does note the
543
"one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist contract
544
from the capitalist contract" namely "it abjured profit and exploitation."
545
[Op. Cit., pp. 40-41] -- which, of course, places him in the socialist
546
tradition (see last section). Unfortunately, Bookchin fails to acknowledge
547
this or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along with
548
usury, which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see,
549
for example, the _General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 98, pp. 215-6
550
and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of capital as being
551
"more wage slavery" and, instead, urging whatever capital required
552
collective labour to be "democratically organised workers'
553
associations" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 62]).
554
555
Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that "association"
556
was "a protest against the wage system" which suggests that
557
Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian "analysis minimised the
558
social relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry"
559
[p. 180] is false. Given that wage labour is *the* unique social
560
relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works
561
that he did not "minimise" the social relations created by
562
capitalism, rather the opposite. Proudhon's opposition to wage
563
labour clearly shows that he focused on the *key* social relation
564
which capitalism creates -- namely the one of domination of the
565
worker by the capitalist.
566
567
Bookchin *does* mention that Proudhon was "obliged in 1851, in
568
the wake of the associationist ferment of 1848 and after, to
569
acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
570
large-scale enterprises." [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support
571
of industrial democracy pre-dates 1851 by some 11 years. He
572
stated in _What is Property?_ that he "preach[ed] emancipation
573
to the proletaires; association to the labourers" and that
574
"leaders" within industry "must be chosen from the labourers
575
by the labourers themselves." [p. 137 and p. 414] It is
576
significant that the first work to call itself anarchist
577
opposed property along with the state, exploitation along with
578
oppression and supported self-management against hierarchical
579
relationships within production ("anarcho"-capitalists take
580
note!). Proudhon also called for "democratically organised
581
workers' associations" to run large-scale industry in his
582
1848 Election Manifesto. [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,
583
p. 62] Given that Bookchin considers as "authentic artisanal
584
socialists" those who called for *collective* ownership
585
of the means of production, but "exempted from collectivisation
586
the peasantry" [p. 4] we have to conclude that Proudhon was
587
such an "authentic" artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one point
588
Bookchin mentions the "individualistic artisanal socialism
589
of Proudhon" [p. 258] which suggests a somewhat confused
590
approach to Proudhon's ideas!
591
592
In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike
593
Caplan, he should know better. Rather than not being a socialist,
594
Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin himself calls
595
"artisanal socialism" (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed,
596
he notes that Proudhon was its "most famous advocate" and
597
that "nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even
598
[Robert] Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as
599
Proudhon -- essentially sought the equitable distribution of
600
property." [p. 273] Given Proudhon's opposition to wage labour
601
and capitalist property and his support for industrial democracy
602
as an alternative, Bookchin's position is untenable -- he confuses
603
socialism with communism, rejecting as socialist all views which
604
are not communism (a position he shares with right-libertarians).
605
606
He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in _The
607
Spanish Anarchists_ that:
608
609
"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen,
610
peasants, and collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate
611
and contract with each other to satisfy their material needs.
612
Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views
613
involve a break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded
614
as communist ideas. . ." [p. 18]
615
616
In contrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven
617
Vincent is correct to argue that, for Proudhon, justice "applied
618
to the economy was associative socialism" and so Proudhon is
619
squarely in the socialist camp [_Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
620
and the Rise of French Republican Socialism_, p. 228].
621
622
However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin,
623
who *is* wrong, at least some of the time). Perhaps they just did
624
not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated
625
"I am socialist" [_Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
626
p. 195] and described himself as a socialist many times this also
627
applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
628
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The
629
answer is no. To quote George Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas
630
on this subject we find:
631
632
"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to
633
exploit the labour of others, without an effort on his own part,
634
property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions
635
of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
636
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the
637
land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed
638
he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." ["On Proudhon's
639
'What is Property?'", _The Raven_ No. 31, pp. 208-9]
640
641
George Crowder makes the same point:
642
643
"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . .
644
including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This
645
is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by
646
the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his
647
dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate
648
rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his
649
latter work he calls *this* 'property,' the conceptual distinction
650
remains the same." [_Classical Anarchism_, pp. 85-86]
651
652
Indeed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of capital and
653
instrument is what the capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays
654
him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which causes the poverty of
655
the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
656
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation
657
of man by man." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 43]
658
659
He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society, the synthesis
660
of communism and property" and calls it "liberty." [_The Anarchist Reader_,
661
p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that property "by its despotism and
662
encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op. Cit.,
663
p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital
664
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he
665
considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to rescue the working
666
masses from capitalist exploitation." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
667
Proudhon_, p. 44, p. 80]
668
669
In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source
670
of exploitation and oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly contrasts
671
his ideas to that of capitalist property and *rejects* it as a means of
672
ensuring liberty.
673
674
Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include
675
his defence of the right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine
676
antagonism between state power and property rights."
677
678
However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that
679
possession is a source of independence within capitalism and so should be
680
supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:
681
682
"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the
683
fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only
684
the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy
685
(that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed
686
artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight a
687
contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[_Anarchism: Arguments
688
For and Against_, pp. 12-13]
689
690
Malatesta makes the same point:
691
692
"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
693
private property by stating that property is the condition and
694
guarantee of liberty.
695
696
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is
697
slavery?
698
699
"But then why do we oppose them?
700
701
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
702
property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class of
703
the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the
704
property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that
705
workers are subjected to a kind of slavery." [_The Anarchist Revolution_,
706
p. 113]
707
708
As does Kropotkin:
709
710
"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour
711
is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really produces
712
most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his
713
occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
714
when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who
715
work like him, but bringing in little to idlers." [_The Conquest
716
of Bread_, p. 145]
717
718
Perhaps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really"
719
proto-"anarcho"-capitalists as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering
720
if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries to rewrite history
721
to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
722
socialism and whatever are actually like.
723
724
In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's "emphasis on the genuine
725
antagonism between state power and property rights" came from his later
726
writings, in which he argued that property rights were required to control
727
state power. In other words, this "heterodoxy" came from a period in which
728
Proudhon did not think that state could be abolished and so "property is
729
the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State." [_Selected
730
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 140] Of course, this "later"
731
Proudhon also acknowledged that property was "an absolutism within an
732
absolutism," "by nature autocratic" and that its "politics could be
733
summed up in a single word," namely "exploitation." [p. 141, p. 140,
734
p. 134]
735
736
Moreover, Proudhon argues that "spread[ing] it more equally and
737
establish[ing] it more firmly in society" is the means by which
738
"property" "becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on
739
an even keel." [p. 133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property"
740
*as such* limiting the state, it is "property" divided equally
741
through society which is the key, without concentrations of
742
economic power and inequality which would result in exploitation
743
and oppression. Therefore, "[s]imple justice. . . requires that
744
equal division of land shall not only operate at the outset. If
745
there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to
746
generation." [Op. Cit., p. 141, p. 133, p. 130].
747
748
Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" Caplan does not
749
mention is his belief that "property" was required not only to defend
750
people against the state, but also capitalism. He saw society dividing
751
into "two classes, one of employed workers, the other of property-owners,
752
capitalists, entrepreneurs." He thus recognised that capitalism was just
753
as oppressive as the state and that it assured "the victory of the strong
754
over the weak, of those who property over those who own nothing." [as quoted
755
by Alan Ritter, _The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 121]
756
Thus Proudhon's argument that "property is liberty" is directed not only
757
against the state, but also against social inequality and concentrations
758
of economic power and wealth.
759
760
Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were the "exploiters
761
of the bodies and souls of their wage earners" and an outrage on "human
762
dignity and personality." Instead of wage labour he thought that the
763
"industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and
764
indivisible property of all the participant workers." In other words,
765
self-management and workers' control. In this way there would be
766
"no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
767
capital" and the "social republic" established. Hence his support
768
for co-operatives:
769
770
"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests,
771
but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments,
772
which the first [French] revolution left undisturbed. Afterwards, when
773
they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of workers should
774
take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
775
inheritance." [cited in _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1,
776
and _Anarchism_, George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
777
778
In other words, a *socialist* society as workers would no longer be
779
separated from the means of production and they would control their
780
own work (the "abolition of the proletariat," to use Proudhon's
781
expression). This would mean recognising that "the right to products
782
is exclusive - jus in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem"
783
[cited by Woodcock, _Anarchism_, p. 96] which would lead to
784
self-management:
785
786
"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of
787
industrial democracy." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
788
Proudhon_, p. 63]
789
790
As Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal society of
791
the ideal society it is this predominance of the small proprietor, the
792
peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one" with "the creation
793
of co-operative associations for the running of factories and railways."
794
["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]
795
796
All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon
797
as "really" a capitalist all along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's
798
support for protectionism [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
799
Proudhon_, p. 187], the "fixing after amicable discussion of a
800
*maximum* and *minimum* profit margin," "the organising of regulating
801
societies" and that mutualism would "regulate the market" [Op. Cit.,
802
p. 70] and his obvious awareness of economic power and that capitalism
803
exploited and oppressed the wage-worker suggests that rather than
804
leading some to exclude Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether,
805
it is a case of excluding him utterly from the "rightist camp"
806
(i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism). Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim
807
(co-opt would be better) Proudhon for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates
808
how far Caplan will twist (or ignore) the evidence. As would quickly
809
become obvious when reading his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's
810
words) "normally classify government, property, hierarchical
811
organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"
812
813
To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite
814
anarchist and socialist history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead
815
for both wings of the anarchist movement and _What is Property?_
816
"embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support
817
for revolution] all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or
818
implied: the conception of a free society united by association, of
819
workers controlling the means of production. . . [this book] remains
820
the foundation on which the whole edifice of nineteenth century
821
anarchist theory was to be constructed." [Op. Cit., p. 210]
822
823
Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely
824
developed and pushed to these, its final consequences." [_Michael
825
Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 198]
826
827
4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.
828
829
That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from _Instead
830
of A Book_ or any of the books written about Tucker and his ideas.
831
That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has not looked
832
at either _Instead of a Book_ or the secondary literature (with obvious
833
implications for the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore
834
these facts in favour of his own ideologically tainted version of
835
history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy and
836
objectivity of his FAQ).
837
838
Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as
839
follows in section 14 (What are the major debates between anarchists?
840
What are the recurring arguments?):
841
842
"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save
843
his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
844
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
845
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
846
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
847
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
848
all the possession by the labourer of his products."
849
850
You will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property "the
851
possession of the labourer of his products." However, Proudhon did include
852
in his definition of "property" the possession of the capital to steal
853
profits from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker
854
and Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property ("the power of usury").
855
From Caplan's own evidence he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!
856
857
But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":
858
859
"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses,
860
and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer."
861
[cited in _Men against the State_ by James J. Martin, p. 208]
862
863
Which can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports
864
capitalism!
865
866
And we should note that Tucker considered both government and capital
867
oppressive. He argued that anarchism meant "the restriction of power to
868
self and the abolition of power over others. Government makes itself felt
869
alike in country and in city, capital has its usurious grip on the farm
870
as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions and exactions of neither
871
government nor capital can be avoided by migration." [_Instead of a Book_,
872
p. 114]
873
874
And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps
875
Caplan should actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private
876
property before writing such nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's
877
ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it is interesting
878
that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating
879
that he does not know what socialism or anarchism actually is. To state
880
the obvious, you can be a hater of "communism" and still be a socialist!
881
882
So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon
883
were really capitalists by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.
884
885
He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist
886
is wrong because "the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For
887
example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been
888
inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many
889
19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
890
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property
891
(merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate,
892
without opposing private property as such)."
893
894
The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however,
895
are not "incorrect." It is Caplan's assumption that socialism is against
896
all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the obvious, socialism
897
does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists support the rights of
898
workers to own their own means of production if they do not wish to join
899
communist communes -- see above). Thus Proudhon was renown as the leading
900
French Socialist theorist when he was alive. His ideas were widely known
901
in the socialist movement and in many ways his economic theories were
902
similar to the ideas of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen
903
and William Thompson. As Kropotkin notes:
904
905
"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England,
906
in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist,
907
and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The
908
Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy,
909
1839)." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 291]
910
911
Perhaps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?
912
913
Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated
914
that there were "two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism
915
and Anarchism." And stated in very clear terms that:
916
917
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:
918
the prevalence on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [_Instead of
919
a Book_, p. 363]
920
921
And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and wage slavery)
922
and wished that "there should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State
923
Socialism and Anarchism" in _Instead of a Book_, p. 17]
924
925
Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject
926
of capitalism and private property. In section 13. (What moral justifications
927
have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:
928
929
"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
930
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
931
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
932
means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
933
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
934
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labour income
935
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
936
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
937
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
938
economic effect thereof would not actually occur."
939
940
Firstly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered
941
*profits* to be exploitative as well as interest and rent. Hence we
942
find Tucker arguing that a "just distribution of the products of
943
labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except
944
labour. These sources may be summed up in one word, -- usury; and
945
the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent and profit."
946
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 474] To ignore the fact that Tucker also
947
considered profit as exploitative seems strange, to say the least,
948
when presenting an account of his ideas.
949
950
Secondly, rather than it being "unclear" whether the end of usury
951
was "merely a desirable side effect" of anarchism, the opposite
952
is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would quickly see
953
that their politics were formulated with the express aim of ending
954
usury. Just one example from hundreds:
955
956
"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will
957
abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will
958
abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means
959
whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product."
960
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 347]
961
962
While it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would
963
result from the application of Tucker's ideas, it *is* distinctly
964
incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way
965
as a "desirable side effect" of them. Rather, in *their* eyes, the
966
end of usury was one of *the* aims of Individualist Anarchism, as
967
can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out in his excellent
968
account of Individualist Anarchism:
969
970
"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in
971
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of
972
equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least,
973
aware that existing conditions were far from ideal, that
974
the system itself worked against the majority of individuals
975
in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital,
976
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually
977
doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation. This the
978
anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system." [_The
979
Individualist Anarchists_, p. 102]
980
981
This is part of the reason why they considered themselves
982
socialists and, equally as important, they were considered
983
socialists by *other* socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker.
984
The Individualist Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily
985
into Kropotkin's comments that "the anarchists, in common
986
with all socialists. . . maintain that the now prevailing
987
system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist
988
production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly
989
which runs against both the principles of justice and the
990
dictates of utility." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
991
p. 285] Given that they considered profits as usury and
992
proposed "occupancy and use" in place of the prevailing
993
land ownership rights they are obviously socialists.
994
995
That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his
996
politics explains Tucker's 1911 postscript to his famous essay
997
"State Socialism and Anarchism" in which he argues that "concentrated
998
capital" *itself* was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued that
999
the "trust is now a monster which. . . even the freest competition,
1000
could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy." While, in
1001
an earlier period, big business "needed the money monopoly for
1002
its sustenance and its growth" its size now ensured that it
1003
"sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no
1004
longer a necessity. It can do without it." This meant that the
1005
way was now "not so clear." Indeed, he argued that the problem
1006
of the trusts "must be grappled with for a time solely by forces
1007
political or revolutionary" as the trust had moved beyond the
1008
reach of "economic forces" simply due to the concentration of
1009
resources in its hands. ["Postscript" to _State Socialism and
1010
Anarchism_]
1011
1012
If the end of "usury" *was* considered a "side-effect" rather
1013
than an objective, then the problems of the trusts and economic
1014
inequality/power ("enormous concentration of wealth") would
1015
not have been an issue. That the fact of economic power *was*
1016
obviously considered a hindrance to anarchy suggests the end
1017
of usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in
1018
the abstract could not achieve. Rather than take the
1019
"anarcho"-capitalist position that massive inequality
1020
did not affect "free competition" or individual liberty,
1021
Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore, "free
1022
competition" (and so the abolition of the public state)
1023
in conditions of massive inequality would not create an
1024
anarchist society.
1025
1026
By trying to relegate an aim to a "side-effect," Caplan distorts
1027
the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his comments on trusts, "concentrated
1028
capital" and the "enormous concentration of wealth" indicates
1029
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism
1030
(which dismisses the question of economic power Tucker raises
1031
out of hand). It also indicates the unity of political and
1032
economic ideas, with Tucker being aware that without a suitable
1033
economic basis individual freedom was meaningless. That an
1034
economy (like capitalism) with massive inequalities in wealth
1035
and so power was not such a basis is obvious from Tucker's comments.
1036
1037
Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly?
1038
Private property, particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism
1039
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based upon
1040
actual occupancy and use" and that anarchism "means the abolition
1041
of landlordism and the annihilation of rent." [_Instead of a Book_,
1042
p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a restriction on
1043
"private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use
1044
Caplan's definition of socialism, means that Tucker was obviously
1045
part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In other words,
1046
Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while
1047
socialism (libertarian of course) would be the product of anarchy.
1048
1049
So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism
1050
is simply anti-government fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have
1051
distinct economic as well as political ideas and these cannot be parted
1052
without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's
1053
attempt to portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government
1054
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner
1055
also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure" anti-government
1056
anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows that his
1057
self-proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and, unsurprisingly,
1058
Tucker called himself a socialist and considered anarchism as part of
1059
the wider socialist movement.
1060
1061
"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'" [William O.
1062
Reichart, _Partisans of Freedom_: A Study in American Anarchism_,
1063
p. 157]
1064
1065
5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
1066
1067
Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and
1068
Proudhon's "capitalism" by stating that:
1069
1070
"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
1071
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of 'anarchist.' In his
1072
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
1073
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were
1074
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
1075
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
1076
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
1077
Liberty.' Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
1078
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
1079
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
1080
including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
1081
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
1082
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
1083
1084
There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to
1085
prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because
1086
while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement,
1087
Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In
1088
_State Socialism and Anarchism_ he stated that anarchism was "an ideal
1089
utterly inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call
1090
themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a regime of
1091
Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves."
1092
["State Socialism and Anarchism", _Instead of a Book_, pp. 15-16]
1093
1094
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon
1095
or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters
1096
of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a *political* movement
1097
(as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist
1098
and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In
1099
other words, anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated
1100
with specific political *and* economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin
1101
defined their anarchism as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To
1102
quote Tucker on the subject:
1103
1104
"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition
1105
of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation
1106
of man by man." [cited in _Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
1107
American Individualism_ by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
1108
1109
Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of socialism."
1110
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 46] Malatesta argued that
1111
"when [people] sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it
1112
was anarchy was born" and, like Tucker, aimed for "the complete
1113
destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man."
1114
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 19, pp. 22-28] Indeed *every* leading anarchist
1115
theorist defined anarchism as opposition to government *and*
1116
exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent summary:
1117
1118
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of
1119
politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil,
1120
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
1121
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way
1122
anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, for example], and
1123
partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism
1124
from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
1125
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character
1126
of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has
1127
never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
1128
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally
1129
critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state."
1130
["Anthropology and Anarchism," _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
1131
Armed_ no. 45, p. 40]
1132
1133
Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always
1134
combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to exploitation.
1135
Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism have declared
1136
themselves "socialist" and so it is "conceptually and historically
1137
misleading" to "create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism."
1138
[Brian Morris, Op. Cit., p. 39] Needless to say, anarchists oppose
1139
*state* socialism just as much as they oppose capitalism. All of
1140
which means that anarchism and capitalism are two *different*
1141
political ideas with specific (and opposed) meanings -- to deny
1142
these meanings by uniting the two terms creates an oxymoron, one
1143
that denies the history and the development of ideas as well
1144
as the whole history of the anarchist movement itself.
1145
1146
As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but
1147
not a communist) it is hardly surprising that he mentions him. Again,
1148
Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a "right-wing"
1149
anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending
1150
individualist anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of
1151
capitalism! That in itself should be enough to indicate Caplan's attempt
1152
to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-option of
1153
Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.
1154
1155
Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins.
1156
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:
1157
1158
"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
1159
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
1160
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
1161
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
1162
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
1163
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
1164
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
1165
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption,
1166
but overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
1167
common with anarcho-capitalists than with left-anarchists.)"
1168
1169
Firstly, as he states, Tucker and Spooner have been "adopted" by the
1170
"anarcho"-capitalist school. Being dead they have little chance to
1171
protest such an adoption, but it is clear that they considered themselves
1172
as socialists, against capitalism (it may be claimed that Spooner never
1173
called himself a socialist, but then again he never called himself an
1174
anarchist either; it is his strong opposition to wage labour that places
1175
him in the socialist camp). Secondly, Caplan lets the cat out the bag by
1176
noting that this "adoption" involved a few warnings - more specifically,
1177
the attempt to rubbish or ignore the underlying socio-economic ideas of
1178
Tucker and Spooner and the obvious anti-capitalist nature of their
1179
vision of a free society.
1180
1181
Individualist anarchists are, indeed, more similar to classical liberals
1182
than social anarchists. Similarly, social anarchists are more similar to
1183
Marxists than Individualist anarchists. But neither statement means that
1184
Individualist anarchists are capitalists, or social anarchists are state
1185
socialists. It just means some of their ideas overlap -- and we must point
1186
out that Individualist anarchist ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and
1187
social anarchist ones with liberal ones (indeed, one interesting
1188
overlap between Marxism and Individualist Anarchism can be seen from
1189
Marx's comment that abolishing interest and inter-bearing capital
1190
"means the abolition of capital and of capitalist production itself."
1191
[_Theories of Surplus Value_, vol. 3, p. 472] Given that Individualist
1192
Anarchism aimed to abolish interest (along with rent and profit) it
1193
would suggest, from a Marxist position, that it is a socialist theory).
1194
1195
So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism
1196
ideas are "partly those of Proudhon, but party those of Herbert
1197
Spencer," [_Kropotkins' Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 173] what
1198
the "anarcho"-capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the
1199
Proudhonian (i.e. socialist) aspect of their theories. However,
1200
that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was not an anarchist, but a
1201
right-wing Libertarian, a supporter of capitalism (a "champion of
1202
the capitalistic class" as Tucker put it). In other words, to
1203
ignore the socialist aspect of Individualist Anarchism (or
1204
anarchism in general) is to reduce it to liberalism, an extreme
1205
version of liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless -- and liberalism
1206
is not anarchism. To reduce anarchism so is to destroy what makes
1207
anarchism a unique political theory and movement:
1208
1209
"anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both
1210
historically and ideologically . . . In a sense, anarchists
1211
always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject
1212
what is good in either they betray anarchism itself . . . We are
1213
liberals but more so, and socialists but more so." [Nicholas Walter,
1214
_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 44]
1215
1216
In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas
1217
which have little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in
1218
his overview of anarchist theory and history, agrees:
1219
1220
"It is hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] --
1221
with roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist
1222
only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."
1223
[_Contemporary Political Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony
1224
Wright (eds.), p. 142]
1225
1226
Barbara Goodwin also agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true
1227
place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism.
1228
[_Using Political Ideas_, p. 148] Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism
1229
is an off-shoot of classical liberalism is a position Murray Rothbard
1230
would agree with, as he states that right-wing Libertarians constitute
1231
"the vanguard of classical liberalism." [quoted by Ulrike Heider,
1232
_Anarchism: Left, Right and Green_, p. 95] Unfortunately for this
1233
perspective anarchism is not liberalism and liberalism is not anarchism.
1234
And equally as unfortunate (this time for the anarchist movement!)
1235
"anarcho"-capitalism "is judged to be anarchism largely because some
1236
anarcho-capitalists *say* they are 'anarchists' and because they
1237
criticise the State." [Peter Sabatini, _Social Anarchism_, no. 23,
1238
p. 100] However, being opposed to the state is a necessary but not
1239
sufficient condition for being an anarchist (as can be seen from the
1240
history of the anarchist movement). Brian Morris puts it well when
1241
he writes:
1242
1243
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
1244
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
1245
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination.
1246
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
1247
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
1248
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
1249
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
1250
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
1251
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
1252
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
1253
of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians
1254
. . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who
1255
fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists."
1256
[Op. Cit., p. 38]
1257
1258
Rather than call themselves by a name which reflects their origins
1259
in liberalism (and *not* anarchism), the "anarcho"-capitalists have
1260
instead seen fit to try and appropriate the name of anarchism and,
1261
in order to do so, ignore key aspects of anarchist theory in the
1262
process. Little wonder, then, they try and prove their anarchist
1263
credentials via dictionary definitions rather than from the
1264
anarchist movement itself (see next section).
1265
1266
Caplan's attempt in his FAQ is an example to ignore individualist
1267
anarchist theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand
1268
their ideas on property and instead Caplan just concentrates on the
1269
fact they use the word. Caplan also ignores:
1270
1271
- their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider socialist
1272
movement.
1273
1274
- their opposition to capitalist property-rights in land and other scarce
1275
resources.
1276
1277
- their recognition that capitalism was based on usury and that it was
1278
exploitation.
1279
1280
- their attacks on government *and* capital, rather than just government.
1281
1282
- their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
1283
secure the full product of their labour.
1284
1285
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
1286
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also agreed
1287
with) and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory investigation
1288
indicates the non-capitalist nature of their ideas on property and
1289
the socialistic nature of their theories.
1290
1291
Perhaps Caplan should ponder these words of Kropotkin supporters of the
1292
"individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians . . . soon realise
1293
that the individualisation they so highly praise is not attainable by
1294
individual efforts, and . . . abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and
1295
are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist."
1296
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 297]
1297
1298
Caplan seems to confuse the end of the ending place of ex-anarchists
1299
with their starting point. As can be seen from his attempt to co-opt
1300
Proudhon, Spooner and Tucker he has to ignore their ideas and rewrite
1301
history.
1302
1303
6 - Appendix: Defining Anarchism
1304
1305
In his Appendix "Defining Anarchism" we find that Caplan attempts
1306
to defend his dictionary definition of anarchism. He does this
1307
by attempting to refute two arguments, The Philological Argument
1308
and the Historical Argument.
1309
1310
Taking each in turn we find:
1311
1312
Caplan's definition of "The Philological Argument" is as follows:
1313
1314
"Several critics have noted the origin of the term 'anarchy,' which
1315
derives from the Greek 'arkhos,' meaning 'ruler,' and the prefix 'an-,'
1316
meaning 'without.' It is therefore suggested that in my definition the
1317
word 'government' should be replaced with the word 'domination' or
1318
'rulership'; thus re-written, it would then read: 'The theory or
1319
doctrine that all forms of rulership are unnecessary, oppressive,
1320
and undesirable and should be abolished.'"
1321
1322
Caplan replies by stating that:
1323
1324
"This is all good and well, so long as we realise that various groups of
1325
anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance
1326
of 'rulership.'"
1327
1328
However, in order to refute this argument by this method, he has
1329
to ignore his own methodology. A dictionary definition of ruler is
1330
"a person who rules by authority." and "rule" is defined as "to
1331
have authoritative control over people" or "to keep (a person or
1332
feeling etc.) under control, to dominate" [_The Oxford Study Dictionary_]
1333
1334
Hierarchy by its very nature is a form of rulership (hier-*archy*)
1335
and is so opposed by anarchists. Capitalism is based upon wage labour,
1336
in which a worker follows the rules of their boss. This is obviously a
1337
form of hierarchy, of domination. Almost all people (excluding die-hard
1338
supporters of capitalism) would agree that being told what to do, when
1339
to do and how to do by a boss is a form of rulership. Anarchists,
1340
therefore, argue that "economic exploitation and political domination
1341
. . . [are] two continually interacting aspects of the same thing --
1342
the subjection of man by man." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_,
1343
p. 147] Rocker made the same point, arguing that the "exploitation
1344
of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable,
1345
and each is the condition of the other." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_,
1346
p. 18]
1347
1348
Thus Caplan is ignoring the meaning of words to state that "on its own
1349
terms this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists" because they
1350
define rulership to exclude most forms of archy! Hardly convincing.
1351
1352
Strangely enough, "anarcho"-capitalist icon Murray Rothbard actually
1353
provides evidence that the anarchist position *is* correct. He argues
1354
that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate
1355
decision-making power, over a given area territorial area." [_The
1356
Ethics of Liberty_, p. 170] This is obviously a form of rulership.
1357
However, he also argues that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith
1358
has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property,
1359
Jones over his, etc." [Op. Cit., p. 173] Which, to state the obvious,
1360
means that *both* the state and property is marked by an "ultimate
1361
decision-making power" over a given territory. The only "difference"
1362
is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly" acquired)
1363
and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force). In reality
1364
of course, the modern distribution of property is just as much a product
1365
of past force as is the modern state. In other words, the current
1366
property owners have acquired their property in the same unjust
1367
fashion as the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other.
1368
Rothbard (and "anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have
1369
it both ways.
1370
1371
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
1372
essentially the same thing:
1373
1374
"*If* the State may be said too properly *own* its territory, then it is
1375
proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that
1376
area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there
1377
*is* no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire
1378
land surface. *So long* as the State permits its subjects to leave its
1379
territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who
1380
sets down rules for people living on his property." [_The Ethics of
1381
Liberty_, p. 170]
1382
1383
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants to
1384
maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
1385
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
1386
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According
1387
to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the "ultimate
1388
decision-making power" over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
1389
"make rules for everyone" who lives in an area, i.e. govern them)
1390
but not be a state. This not a viable position for obvious reasons.
1391
1392
Thus to claim, as Caplan does, that property does not generate
1393
"rulership" is obviously nonsense. Not only does it ignore the
1394
dictionary definition of rulership (which, let us not forget, is
1395
Caplan's *own* methodology) as well as commonsense, it obviously
1396
ignores what the two institutions have in common. *If* the state
1397
is to be condemned as "rulership" then so must property -- for
1398
reasons, ironically enough, Rothbard makes clear!
1399
1400
Caplan's critique of the "Philological Argument" fails because he
1401
tries to deny that the social relationship between worker and
1402
capitalist and tenant and landlord is based upon *archy,* when
1403
it obviously is. To quote Proudhon, considered by Tucker as "the
1404
Anarchist *par excellence,*" the employee "is subordinated,
1405
exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience." Without
1406
"association" (i.e. co-operative workplaces, workers' self-management)
1407
there would be "two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers
1408
which is repugnant to a free and democratic society," castes
1409
"related as subordinates and superiors." [_The General Idea of
1410
the Revolution_, p. 216]
1411
1412
Moving on, Caplan defines the Historical Argument as:
1413
1414
"A second popular argument states that historically, the term 'anarchism'
1415
has been clearly linked with anarcho-socialists, anarcho-communists,
1416
anarcho-syndicalists, and other enemies of the capitalist system. Hence,
1417
the term 'anarcho-capitalism' is a strange oxymoron which only demonstrates
1418
ignorance of the anarchist tradition."
1419
1420
He argues that "even if we were to accept the premise of this argument --
1421
to wit, that the meaning of a word is somehow determined by its historical
1422
usage -- the conclusion would not follow because the minor premise is wrong.
1423
It is simply not true that from its earliest history, all anarchists were
1424
opponents of private property, free markets, and so on."
1425
1426
Firstly, anarchism is not just a word, but a political idea and movement
1427
and so the word used in a political context is associated with a given
1428
body of ideas. You cannot use the word to describe something which has
1429
little or nothing in common with that body of ideas. You cannot call
1430
Marxism "anarchism" simply because they share the anarchist opposition
1431
to capitalist exploitation and aim for a stateless society, for example.
1432
1433
Secondly, it is true that anarchists like Tucker were not against the
1434
free market, but they did not consider capitalism to be defined by the
1435
free market but by exploitation and wage labour (as do all socialists).
1436
In this they share a common ground with Market Socialists who, like
1437
Tucker and Proudhon, do not equate socialism with opposition to the
1438
market or capitalism with the "free market." The idea that socialists
1439
oppose "private property, free markets, and so on" is just an assumption
1440
by Caplan. Proudhon, for example, was not opposed to competition,
1441
"property" (in the sense of possession) and markets but during his
1442
lifetime and up to the present date he is acknowledged as a socialist,
1443
indeed one of the greatest in French (if not European) history. Similarly
1444
we find Rudolf Rocker writing that the Individualist Anarchists "all
1445
agree on the point that man be given the full reward of his labour and
1446
recognised in this right the economic basis of all personal liberty.
1447
They regard free competition . . . as something inherent in human
1448
nature . . . They answered the *socialists of other schools* [emphasis
1449
added] who saw in *free competition* one of the destructive elements
1450
of capitalistic society that the evil lies in the fact that today we
1451
have too little rather than too much competition." [quoted by Herbert
1452
Read, _A One-Man Manifesto_, p. 147] Rocker obviously considered
1453
support for free markets as compatible with socialism. In other
1454
words, Caplan's assumption that all socialists oppose free markets,
1455
competition and so on is simply false -- as can be seen from the
1456
history of the socialist movement. What socialists *do* oppose is
1457
capitalist exploitation -- socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
1458
sense" was an "effort to *abolish* the exploitation of labour by
1459
capital." [Peter Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
1460
p. 169] In this sense the Individualist Anarchists are obviously
1461
socialists, as Tucker and Labadie constantly pointed out.
1462
1463
In addition, as we have proved elsewhere, Tucker was opposed to
1464
capitalist private property just as much as Kropotkin was. Moreover,
1465
it is clear from Tucker's works that he considered himself an enemy
1466
of the capitalist system and called himself a socialist. Thus Caplan's
1467
attempt to judge the historical argument on its own merits fails because
1468
he has to rewrite history to do so.
1469
1470
Caplan is right to state that the meaning of words change over time, but
1471
this does not mean we should run to use dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
1472
rarely express political ideas well - for example, most dictionaries define
1473
the word "anarchy" as "chaos" and "disorder." Does that mean anarchists aim
1474
to create chaos? Of course not. Therefore, Caplan's attempt to use dictionary
1475
definitions is selective and ultimately useless - anarchism as a political
1476
movement cannot be expressed by dictionary definitions and any attempt
1477
to do so means to ignore history.
1478
1479
The problems in using dictionary definitions to describe political ideas
1480
can best be seen from the definition of the word "Socialism." According
1481
to the _Oxford Study Dictionary_ Socialism is "a political and economic
1482
theory advocating that land, resources, and the chief industries should
1483
be owned and managed by the State." The _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_, conversely, defines socialism as "any of various economic
1484
and political theories advocating collective or government ownership
1485
and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
1486
1487
Clearly the latter source has a more accurate definition of socialism than
1488
the former, by allowing for "collective" versus solely "State" control of
1489
productive means. Which definition would be better? It depends on the
1490
person involved. A Marxist, for example, could prefer the first one
1491
simply to exclude anarchism from the socialist movement, something they
1492
have continually tried to do. A right-libertarian could, again, prefer
1493
the first, for obvious reasons. Anarchists would prefer the second, again
1494
for obvious reasons. However neither definition does justice to the
1495
wide range of ideas that have described themselves as socialist.
1496
1497
Using dictionaries as the basis of defining political movements ensures
1498
that one's views depend on *which* dictionary one uses, and *when* it was
1499
written, and so on. This is why they are not the best means of resolving
1500
disputes -- if resolution of disputes is, in fact, your goal.
1501
1502
Both Kropotkin and Tucker stated that they were socialists and that
1503
anarchism was socialistic. If we take the common modern meaning of the
1504
word as state ownership as the valid one then Tucker and Kropotkin are
1505
*not* socialists and no form of anarchism is socialist. This is obviously
1506
nonsense and it shows the limitations of using dictionary definitions on
1507
political theories.
1508
1509
Therefore Caplan's attempt to justify using the dictionary definition
1510
fails. Firstly, because the definitions used would depend which dictionary
1511
you use. Secondly, dictionary definitions cannot capture the ins and
1512
outs of a *political* theory or its ideas on wider subjects.
1513
1514
Ironically enough, Caplan is repeating an attempt made by State Socialists
1515
to deny Individualist Anarchism its socialist title (see "Socialism and
1516
the Lexicographers" in _Instead of a Book_). In reply to this attempt,
1517
Tucker noted that:
1518
1519
"The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their
1520
definitions. A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous.
1521
But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance
1522
by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits."
1523
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 369]
1524
1525
And Tucker provided many quotes from *other* dictionaries to refute the
1526
attempt by the State Socialists to define Individualist Anarchism outside
1527
the Socialist movement. He also notes that any person trying such a method
1528
will "find that the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one
1529
half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [Op. Cit.,
1530
p. 365]
1531
1532
Caplan should take note. His technique been tried before and it failed then
1533
and it will fail again for the same reasons.
1534
1535
As far as his case against the Historical Argument goes, this is equally as
1536
flawed. Caplan states that:
1537
1538
"Before the Protestant Reformation, the word 'Christian,' had referred almost
1539
entirely to Catholics (as well as adherents of the Orthodox Church) for
1540
about one thousand years. Does this reveal any linguistic confusion on
1541
the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and so on, when they called themselves
1542
'Christians'? Of course not. It merely reveals that a word's historical
1543
usage does not determine its meaning."
1544
1545
However, as analogies go this is pretty pathetic. Both the Protestants and
1546
Catholics followed the teachings of Christ but had different interpretations
1547
of it. As such they could both be considered Christians - followers of the
1548
Bible. In the case of anarchism, there are two main groupings - individualist
1549
and social. Both Tucker and Bakunin claimed to follow, apply and develop
1550
Proudhon's ideas (and share his opposition to both state and capitalism)
1551
and so are part of the anarchist tradition.
1552
1553
The anarchist movement was based upon applying the core ideas of Proudhon
1554
(his anti-statism and socialism) and developing them in the same spirit, and
1555
these ideas find their roots in *socialist* history and theory. For example,
1556
William Godwin was claimed as an anarchist after his death by the movement
1557
because of his opposition to both state and private property, something
1558
all anarchists oppose. Similarly, Max Stirner's opposition to both state
1559
and capitalist property places him within the anarchist tradition.
1560
1561
Given that we find fascists and Nazis calling themselves "republicans,"
1562
"democrats," even "liberals" it is worthwhile remembering that the names
1563
of political theories are defined not by who use them, but by the ideas
1564
associated with the name. In other words, a fascist cannot call themselves
1565
a "liberal" any more than a capitalist can call themselves an "anarchist."
1566
To state, as Caplan does, that the historical usage of a word does not
1567
determine its meaning results in utter confusion and the end of meaningful
1568
political debate. If the historical usage of a name is meaningless will we
1569
soon see fascists as well as capitalists calling themselves anarchists? In
1570
other words, the label "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer, pure and simple,
1571
as *all* anarchists have opposed capitalism as an authoritarian system based
1572
upon exploitation and wage slavery.
1573
1574
To ignore the historical usage of a word means to ignore what the movement
1575
that used that word stood for. Thus, if Caplan is correct, an organisation calling itself the "Libertarian National Socialist Party," for example,
1576
can rightly call itself libertarian for "a word's historical usage does
1577
not determine its meaning." Given that right-libertarians in the USA have
1578
tried to steal the name "libertarian" from anarchists and anarchist
1579
influenced socialists, such a perspective on Caplan's part makes perfect
1580
sense. How ironic that a movement that defends private property so strongly
1581
continually tries to steal names from other political tendencies.
1582
1583
Perhaps a better analogy for the conflict between anarchism and "anarcho"-
1584
capitalism would be between Satanists and Christians. Would we consider
1585
as Christian a Satanist grouping claiming to be Christian? A grouping
1586
that rejects everything that Christians believe but who like the name?
1587
Of course not. Neither would we consider as a right-libertarian someone
1588
who is against the free market or someone as a Marxist who supports
1589
capitalism. However, that is what Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists
1590
want us to do with anarchism.
1591
1592
Both social and individualist anarchists defined their ideas in terms of
1593
both political (abolition of the state) *and* economic (abolition of
1594
exploitation) ideas. Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government
1595
form of socialism" while Tucker insisted that anarchism was "the abolition
1596
of the State and the abolition of usury." In this they followed Proudhon
1597
who stated that "[w]e do not admit the government of man by man any more
1598
than the exploitation of man by man." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
1599
_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 245]
1600
1601
In other words, a political movement's economic ideas are just as much
1602
a part of its theories as their political ideas. Any attempt to consider
1603
one in isolation from the other kills what defines the theory and makes
1604
it unique. And, ultimately, any such attempt, is a lie:
1605
1606
"[classical liberalism] is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism,
1607
and therefore simply a lie, for freedom is impossible without equality,
1608
and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism."
1609
[Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 46]
1610
1611
Therefore Caplan's case against the Historical Argument also fails -
1612
"anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer because anarchism has always, in all
1613
its forms, opposed capitalism. Denying and re-writing history is hardly
1614
a means of refuting the historical argument.
1615
1616
Caplan ends by stating:
1617
1618
"Let us designate anarchism (1) anarchism as you define it. Let us designate
1619
anarchism (2) anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary
1620
define it. This is a FAQ about anarchism (2)."
1621
1622
Note that here we see again how the dictionary is a very poor foundation
1623
upon to base an argument. Again using _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
1624
Dictionary_, we find under "anarchist" - "one who rebels against any
1625
authority, established order, or ruling power." This definition is very
1626
close to that which "traditional" anarchists have - which is the basis
1627
for our own opposition to the notion that anarchism is merely rebellion
1628
against *State* authority.
1629
1630
Clearly this definition is at odds with Caplan's own view; is Webster's
1631
then wrong, and Caplan's view right? Which view is backed by the theory
1632
and history of the movement? Surely that should be the basis of who is
1633
part of the anarchist tradition and movement and who is not? Rather
1634
than do this, Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists rush to the
1635
dictionary (well, those that do not define anarchy as "disorder").
1636
This is for a reason as anarchism as a political movement as always
1637
been explicitly anti-capitalist and so the term "anarcho"-capitalism
1638
is an oxymoron.
1639
1640
What Caplan fails to even comprehend is that his choices are false.
1641
Anarchism can be designated in two ways:
1642
1643
(1). Anarchism as you define it
1644
(2). Anarchism as the anarchist movement defines it and finds expression
1645
in the theories developed by that movement.
1646
1647
Caplan chooses anarchism (1) and so denies the whole history of the
1648
anarchist movement. Anarchism is not a word, it is a political theory
1649
with a long history which dictionaries cannot cover. Therefore any attempt
1650
to define anarchism by such means is deeply flawed and ultimately
1651
fails.
1652
1653
That Caplan's position is ultimately false can be seen from the
1654
"anarcho"-capitalists themselves. In many dictionaries anarchy is
1655
defined as "disorder," "a state of lawlessness" and so on. Strangely
1656
enough, no "anarcho"-capitalist ever uses *these* dictionary definitions
1657
of "anarchy"! Thus appeals to dictionaries are just as much a case
1658
of defining anarchism as you desire as not using dictionaries. Far
1659
better to look at the history and traditions of the anarchist movement
1660
itself, seek out its common features and apply *those* as criteria to
1661
those seeking to include themselves in the movement. As can be seen,
1662
"anarcho"-capitalism fails this test and, therefore, are not part of
1663
the anarchist movement. Far better for us all if they pick a new
1664
label to call themselves rather than steal our name.
1665
1666
Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of its
1667
history is not one of them.
1668
1669
***************************
1670
1671
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
1672
FAQ" version 4.1.1.
1673
1674
There have been a few "anarchist" FAQ's produced before. Bryan Caplan's
1675
anarchism FAQ is one of the more recent. While appearing to be a
1676
"neutral" statement of anarchist ideas, it is actually in large part an
1677
"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ. This can be seen by the fact that anarchist ideas
1678
(which he calls "left-anarchist") are given less than half the available
1679
space while "anarcho"-capitalist dogma makes up the majority of it.
1680
Considering that anarchism has been around far longer than
1681
"anarcho"-capitalism and is the bigger and better established movement,
1682
this is surprising. Even his use of the term "left anarchist" is
1683
strange as it is never used by anarchists and ignores the fact that
1684
Individualist Anarchists like Tucker called themselves "socialists"
1685
and considered themselves part of the wider socialist movement. For
1686
anarchists, the expression "left anarchist" is meaningless as all
1687
anarchists are anti-capitalist. Thus the terms used to describe
1688
each "school" in his FAQ are biased (those whom Caplan calls "Left
1689
anarchists" do not use that term, usually preferring "social anarchist"
1690
to distinguish themselves from individualist anarchists like Tucker).
1691
1692
Caplan also frames the debate only around issues which he is comfortable
1693
with. For example, when discussing "left anarchist" ideas he states that
1694
"A key value in this line of anarchist thought is egalitarianism, the view
1695
that inequalities, especially of wealth and power, are undesirable, immoral,
1696
and socially contingent." This, however, is *not* why anarchists are
1697
egalitarians. Anarchists oppose inequalities because they undermine
1698
and restrict individual and social freedom.
1699
1700
Taking another example, under the question, "How would left-anarchy
1701
work?", Caplan fails to spell out some of the really obvious forms of
1702
anarchist thought. For example, the works of Bookchin, Kropotkin, Bakunin
1703
and Proudhon are not discussed in any detail. His vague and confusing
1704
prose would seem to reflect the amount of thought that he has put into it.
1705
Being an "anarcho"-capitalist, Caplan concentrates on the economic aspect
1706
of anarchism and ignores its communal side. The economic aspect of anarchism
1707
he discusses is anarcho-syndicalism and tries to contrast the confederated
1708
economic system explained by one anarcho-syndicalist with Bakunin's
1709
opposition to Marxism. Unfortunately for Caplan, Bakunin is the source of
1710
anarcho-syndicalism's ideas on a confederation of self-managed workplaces
1711
running the economy. Therefore, to state that "many" anarchists "have been
1712
very sceptical of setting up any overall political structure, even a democratic
1713
one, and focused instead on direct worker control at the factory level"
1714
is simply *false*. The idea of direct local control within a confederated
1715
whole is a common thread through anarchist theory and activity, as any
1716
anarchist could tell you.
1717
1718
Lastly, we must note that after Caplan posted his FAQ to the "anarchy-list,"
1719
many of the anarchists on that list presented numerous critiques of the
1720
"anarcho"-capitalist theories and of the ideas (falsely) attributed to
1721
social anarchists in the FAQ, which he chose to ignore (that he was aware
1722
of these postings is asserted by the fact he e-mailed one of the authors
1723
of this FAQ on the issue that anarchists never used or use the term
1724
"left-anarchist" to describe social anarchism. He replied by arguing that
1725
the term "left-anarchist" had been used by Michel Foucault, who never
1726
claimed to be an anarchist, in one of his private letters! Strangely,
1727
he never posted his FAQ to the list again).
1728
1729
Therefore, as can be seen from these few examples, Caplan's "FAQ"
1730
is blatantly biased towards "anarcho-capitalism" and based on the
1731
mis-characterisations and the dis-emphasis on some of the most
1732
important issues between "anarcho-capitalists" and anarchists. It
1733
is clear that his viewpoint is anything but impartial.
1734
1735
This section will highlight some of the many errors and distortions in
1736
that FAQ. Numbers in square brackets refer to the corresponding sections
1737
Caplan's FAQ.
1738
1739
1 Is anarchism purely negative?
1740
1741
[1]. Caplan, consulting his _American Heritage Dictionary_, claims:
1742
"Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is
1743
bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be
1744
difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold."
1745
1746
The last sentence is ridiculous. If we look at the works of Tucker,
1747
Kropotkin, Proudhon and Bakunin (for example) we discover that we
1748
can, indeed list one more "belief that all anarchists hold." This
1749
is opposition to exploitation, to usury (i.e. profits, interest
1750
and rent). For example, Tucker argued that "Liberty insists. . . [on]
1751
the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more
1752
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man."
1753
[cited in _Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
1754
American Individualism_ by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] Such a position
1755
is one that Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would agree with.
1756
1757
In other words, anarchists hold two beliefs -- opposition to
1758
government *and* opposition to exploitation. Any person which
1759
rejects either of these positions cannot be part of the anarchist
1760
movement. In other words, an anarchist must be against capitalism
1761
in order to be a true anarchist.
1762
1763
Moreover it is not at all difficult to find a more fundamental
1764
"defining tenet" of anarchism. We can do so merely by analysing
1765
the term "an-archy," which is composed of the Greek words *an*,
1766
meaning "no" or "without," and *arche*, meaning literally "a
1767
ruler," but more generally referring to the *principle* of
1768
rulership, i.e. hierarchical authority. Hence an anarchist
1769
is someone who advocates abolishing the principle of hierarchical
1770
authority -- not just in government but in all institutions and
1771
social relations.
1772
1773
Anarchists oppose the principle of hierarchical authority because it
1774
is the basis of domination, which is not only degrading in itself but
1775
generally leads to exploitation and all the social evils which follow
1776
from exploitation, from poverty, hunger and homelessness to class
1777
struggle and armed conflict.
1778
1779
Because anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, domination, and
1780
exploitation, they naturally seek to eliminate all hierarchies, as the
1781
very purpose of hierarchy is to facilitate the domination and (usually)
1782
exploitation of subordinates.
1783
1784
The reason anarchists oppose government, then, is because government is
1785
*one manifestation* of the evils of hierarchical authority, domination,
1786
and exploitation. But the capitalist workplace is another. In fact, the
1787
capitalist workplace is where most people have their most frequent and
1788
unpleasant encounters with these evils. Hence workers' control --
1789
the elimination of the hierarchical workplace through democratic
1790
self-management -- has been central to the agenda of classical and
1791
contemporary anarchism from the 19th century to the present. Indeed,
1792
anarchism was born out of the struggle of workers against capitalist
1793
exploitation.
1794
1795
To accept Caplan's definition of anarchism, however, would mean that
1796
anarchists' historical struggle for workers' self-management has never
1797
been a "genuine" anarchist activity. This is clearly a *reductio ad
1798
absurdum* of that definition.
1799
1800
Caplan has confused a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
1801
Opposition to government is a necessary condition of anarchism, but not
1802
a sufficient one. To put it differently, all anarchists oppose government,
1803
but opposition to government does not automatically make one an
1804
anarchist. To be an anarchist one must oppose government for anarchist
1805
reasons and be opposed to all other forms of hierarchical structure.
1806
1807
To understand why let use look to capitalist property. Murray Rothbard
1808
argues that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate
1809
decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."
1810
[_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 173] Defence firms would be employed to
1811
enforce those decisions (i.e. laws and rules). No real disagreement
1812
there. What *is* illuminating is Rothbard's comments that the state
1813
"arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making
1814
power, over a given area territorial area" [Op. Cit. , p. 170] Which,
1815
to state the obvious, means that both the state and property is marked
1816
by an "ultimate decision-making power" over their territory. The only
1817
"difference" is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly"
1818
acquired) and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force). In reality
1819
of course, the modern distribution of property is just as much a product
1820
of past force as is the modern state. In other words, the current
1821
property owners have acquired their property in the same unjust
1822
fashion as the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other.
1823
Rothbard (and "anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have
1824
it both ways.
1825
1826
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
1827
essentially the same thing:
1828
1829
"*If* the State may be said too properly *own* its territory, then it is
1830
proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that
1831
area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there
1832
*is* no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire
1833
land surface. *So long* as the State permits its subjects to leave its
1834
territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who
1835
sets down rules for people living on his property." [_The Ethics of
1836
Liberty_, p. 170]
1837
1838
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants to
1839
maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
1840
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
1841
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According
1842
to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the "ultimate
1843
decision-making power" over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
1844
"make rules for everyone" who lives in an area, i.e. govern them)
1845
but not be a state. This not a viable position for obvious reasons.
1846
1847
In capitalism, property and possession are opposites -- as Proudhon
1848
argued in _What is Property?_. Under possession, the "property" owner
1849
exercises "ultimate decision-making power" over themselves as no-one
1850
else uses the resource in question. This is non-hierarchical. Under
1851
capitalism, however, use and ownership are divided. Landlords and
1852
capitalists give others access to their property while retaining
1853
power over it and so the people who use it. This is by nature
1854
hierarchical. Little wonder Noam Chomsky argued that a "consistent
1855
anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production
1856
and the wage slavery which is a component of this system as incompatible
1857
with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under
1858
the control of the producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", _For Reasons
1859
of State_, p. 158]
1860
1861
Thus a true anarchist must oppose both state and capitalism as
1862
they generate the same hierarchical social relationships (as
1863
recognised by Rothbard but apparently subjected to "doublethink").
1864
As "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose capitalist property they
1865
cannot be anarchists -- they support a very specific form of
1866
*archy,* that of the capitalist/landlord over working class
1867
people.
1868
1869
Self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose government for anarchist
1870
reasons. That is, they oppose it not because it is a manifestation of
1871
hierarchical authority, but because government authority often *conflicts*
1872
with capitalists' authority over the enterprises they control. By
1873
getting rid of government with its minimum wage laws, health and safety
1874
requirements, union rights laws, environmental standards, child labour
1875
laws, and other inconveniences, capitalists would have even more power
1876
to exploit workers than they already do. These consequences of
1877
"anarcho"-capitalism are diametrically opposed to the historically
1878
central objective of the anarchist movement, which is to eliminate
1879
capitalist exploitation.
1880
1881
We must conclude, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists at
1882
all. In reality they are capitalists *posing* as anarchists in order to
1883
attract support for their laissez-faire economic project from those who
1884
are angry at government. This scam is only possible on the basis of the
1885
misunderstanding perpetrated by Caplan: that anarchism means nothing
1886
more than opposition to government.
1887
1888
Better definitions of anarchism can be found in other reference works.
1889
For example, in _Grollier's Online Encyclopedia_ we read: "Anarchism
1890
rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well
1891
as political." According to this more historically and etymologically
1892
accurate definition, "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism,
1893
since it does not reject hierarchical authority in the economic sphere
1894
(which has been the area of prime concern to anarchists since day one).
1895
Hence it is *bogus* anarchism.
1896
1897
2 Anarchism and Equality
1898
1899
[5.] On the question "What major subdivisions may be made among
1900
anarchists?" Caplan writes:
1901
1902
"Unlike the left-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists generally place
1903
little or no value on equality, believing that inequalities along
1904
all dimensions -- including income and wealth -- are not only perfectly
1905
legitimate so long as they 'come about in the right way,' but are the
1906
natural consequence of human freedom."
1907
1908
This statement is not inaccurate as a characterisation of
1909
"anarcho"-capitalist ideas, but its implications need to be
1910
made clear. "Anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no
1911
value on equality -- particularly economic equality -- because they
1912
know that under their system, where capitalists would be completely
1913
free to exploit workers to the hilt, wealth and income inequalities
1914
would become even greater than they are now. Thus their references to
1915
"human freedom" as the way in which such inequalities would allegedly
1916
come about means "freedom of capitalists to exploit workers;" it
1917
does not mean "freedom of workers *from* capitalist exploitation."
1918
1919
But "freedom to exploit workers" has historically been the objective
1920
only of capitalists, not anarchists. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalism
1921
again shows itself to be nothing more than capitalism attempting to
1922
pass itself off as part of the anarchist movement -- a movement that
1923
has been dedicated since its inception to the destruction of capitalism!
1924
One would have to look hard to find a more audacious fraud.
1925
1926
As we argue in section F.2.1, the claim that inequalities are irrelevant
1927
if they "come about the right way" ignores the reality of freedom and
1928
what is required to be free. To see way we have to repeat part of our
1929
argument from that section and look at Murray Rothbard's (a leading
1930
"anarcho"-capitalist icon) analysis of the situation after the abolition
1931
of serfdom in Russia and slavery in America. He writes:
1932
1933
"The *bodies* of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they
1934
had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of their
1935
former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their hands, the
1936
former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once more of what
1937
were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and slaves had tasted
1938
freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits." [_The Ethics of
1939
Liberty_, p. 74]
1940
1941
However, contrast this with Rothbard's (and Caplan's) claims that if market
1942
forces ("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of free tenants or
1943
wage-labourers then these labourers and tenants are free (see, for example,
1944
_The Ethics of Liberty_, pp. 221-2 on why "economic power" within capitalism
1945
does not, in fact, exist). But the labourers dispossessed by market forces
1946
are in *exactly* the same situation as the former serfs and slaves. Rothbard
1947
sees the obvious "economic power" in the later case, but denies it in the
1948
former. But the *conditions* of the people in question are identical and it
1949
is these conditions that horrify us and create social relationships because
1950
on subordination, authority and oppression rather than freedom. It is only
1951
ideology that stops Rothbard and Caplan drawing the obvious conclusion --
1952
identical conditions produce identical social relationships and so if the
1953
formally "free" ex-serfs are subject to "economic power" and "masters" then
1954
so are the formally "free" labourers within capitalism! Both sets of workers
1955
may be formally free, but their circumstances are such that they are "free"
1956
to "consent" to sell their freedom to others (i.e. economic power produces
1957
relationships of domination and unfreedom between formally free individuals).
1958
1959
Thus inequalities that "come about in the right way" restrict freedom just
1960
as much as inequalities that do not. If the latter restricts liberty and
1961
generate oppressive and exploitative social relationships then so do the
1962
former. Thus, if we are serious about individuality liberty (rather than
1963
property) we must look at inequalities and what generate them.
1964
1965
One last thing. Caplan states that inequalities in capitalism are "the
1966
natural consequence of human freedom." They are not, unless you subscribe
1967
to the idea that capitalist property rights are the basis of human freedom.
1968
However, the assumption that capitalist property rights are the best
1969
means to defend individual liberty can be easily seen to be flawed just
1970
from the example of the ex-slaves and ex-serfs we have just described.
1971
Inequalities resulting from "voluntary exchanges" in the capitalist
1972
market can and do result in the denial of freedom, thus suggesting that
1973
"property" and liberty are not natural consequences of each other.
1974
1975
To state the obvious, private property (rather than possession) means
1976
that the non-property owner can gain access to the resource in question
1977
only when they agree to submit to the property owner's authority (and
1978
pay tribute for the privilege of being bossed about). This aspect of
1979
property (rightly called "despotism" by Proudhon) is one which
1980
right-libertarians continually fail to highlight when they defend
1981
it as the paradigm of liberty.
1982
1983
3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
1984
1985
[7.] In this section ("Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?") Caplan
1986
writes:
1987
1988
"Outside of the Anglo-American political culture, there has been
1989
a long and close historical relationship between the more orthodox
1990
socialists who advocate a socialist government, and the anarchist
1991
socialists who desire some sort of decentralised, voluntary socialism.
1992
The two groups both want to severely limit or abolish private property..."
1993
1994
For Caplan to claim that anarchism is not the same thing as socialism,
1995
he has to ignore anarchist history. For example, the Individualist
1996
anarchists called themselves "socialists," as did social anarchists.
1997
Indeed, Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie stated that
1998
"Anarchism is voluntary socialism" [_Anarchism: What it is and What
1999
it is Not_) and wanted to limit private property in many ways (for
2000
example, "the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so forth --
2001
should not be held as private property and subject to being held
2002
by the individual for speculative purposes, that use of these things
2003
shall be the only valid title, and that each person has an equal right
2004
to the use of all these things." [_What is Socialism?_]). Therefore,
2005
*within* the "Anglo-American political culture," *all* types of anarchists
2006
considered themselves part of the socialist movement. This can be seen
2007
not only from Kropotkin's or Bakunin's work, but also in Tucker's (see
2008
_Instead of a Book_). So to claim that the "Anglo-American" anarchists
2009
did not have "a long and close historical relationship" with the wider
2010
socialist movement is simply *false.*
2011
2012
The statement that anarchists want to severely limit or abolish "private
2013
property" is misleading if it is not further explained. For the way it
2014
stands, it sounds like anarchism is just another form of coercive "state"
2015
(i.e. a political entity that forcibly prevents people from owning private
2016
property), whereas this is far from the case.
2017
2018
Firstly, anarchists are *not* against "private property" in the sense
2019
personal belongings. "Anarchists," points out Nicholas Walter, "are
2020
in favour of the private property which cannot be used by one person
2021
to exploit another -- those personal possessions which we accumulate
2022
from childhood and which become part of ours." ["About Anarchism",
2023
in _Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 49] Kropotkin makes the anarchist
2024
position clear when he wrote that we "do not want to rob any one
2025
of his coat" but expropriation "must apply to everything that
2026
enables any man [or woman] -- by he financier, mill owner, or
2027
landlord -- to appropriate the product of others' toil." [_The
2028
Conquest of Bread_, p. 61]
2029
2030
In effect, Caplan is confusing two very different kinds of "private
2031
property", of which one rests on usefulness to an individual, the
2032
other on the employment (and so exploitation) of the labour of others.
2033
The latter produces social relations of domination between individuals,
2034
while the former is a relationship between people and things. As
2035
Proudhon argued, possession becomes property only when it also serves
2036
as means of exploitation and subjection of other people. But failing
2037
to distinguish these radically different forms of "private property"
2038
Caplan distorts the anarchist position.
2039
2040
Secondly, it is not that anarchists want to pass laws making private
2041
property (in the second, exploitative, sense) illegal. Rather they want
2042
to restructure society in such a way that the means of production are
2043
freely available for workers to use. This does not mean "anarchist police"
2044
standing around with guns to prohibit people from owning private property.
2045
Rather, it means dismantling the coercive state agencies that make private
2046
property possible, i.e., the departments of real police who now stand around
2047
with guns protecting private property.
2048
2049
Once that occurs, anarchists maintain that capitalism would be impossible,
2050
since capitalism is essentially a monopoly of the means of production,
2051
which can only be maintained by organised coercion. For suppose that in
2052
an anarchist society someone (call him Bob) somehow acquires certain
2053
machinery needed to produce widgets (a doubtful supposition if
2054
widget-making machines are very expensive, as there will be little
2055
wealth disparity in an anarchist society). And suppose Bob offers to
2056
let workers with widget-making skills use his machines if they will
2057
pay him "rent," i.e. allow him to appropriate a certain amount of the
2058
value embodied in the widgets they produce. The workers will simply
2059
refuse, choosing instead to join a widget-making collective where
2060
they have free access to widget-making machinery, thus preventing
2061
Bob from living parasitically on their labour. Thus Kropotkin:
2062
2063
"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs
2064
from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society
2065
need not fear the advent of a Rothschild [or any other millionaire]
2066
who would settle in its midst. If every member of the community
2067
knows that after a few hours of productive toil he [or she] will
2068
have a right to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and
2069
to those deeper sources of enjoyment which art and science offer
2070
to all who seek them, he [or she] will not sell his strength. . .
2071
No one will volunteer to work for the enrichment of your Rothschild."
2072
[Op. Cit., p. 61]
2073
2074
In this scenario, private property was "abolished," but not through
2075
coercion. Indeed, it was precisely the abolition of organised coercion
2076
that allowed private property to be abolished.
2077
2078
4 Anarchism and dissidents
2079
2080
[9.] On the question "How would left-anarchy work?" Caplan writes:
2081
2082
"Some other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are quite
2083
unclear. Whether dissidents who despised all forms of communal living
2084
would be permitted to set up their own inegalitarian separatist societies
2085
is rarely touched upon. Occasionally left-anarchists have insisted that
2086
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivised, but the
2087
limits of the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian way of life are
2088
rarely specified."
2089
2090
This is a straw man. "Left" (i.e. real) anarchist theory clearly implies
2091
and *explicitly states* the answer to these questions.
2092
2093
Firstly, on the issue of "separatist" societies. Anarchist thinkers
2094
have always acknowledged that there would be multitude of different
2095
communities after a revolution (and not just Caplan's "inegalitarian"
2096
ones). Marx, for example, mocked Bakunin for arguing that only
2097
revolutionary communes would federate together and that this would
2098
not claim any right to govern others (see Bakunin's "Letter to Albert
2099
Richards", _Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 179] Kropotkin
2100
stated that "the point attained in the socialisation of wealth will
2101
not be everywhere the same" and "[s]ide by side with the revolutionised
2102
communes . . . places would remain in an expectant attitude, and
2103
would go on living on the Individualist system." [_The Conquest
2104
of Bread_, p. 81] While he was hopeful that "everywhere [would be]
2105
more or less Socialism" he recognised that the revolution
2106
would not conform to "any particular rule" and would differ in
2107
different areas -- "in one country State Socialist, in another
2108
Federation" and so on. [Op. Cit., p. 82] Malatesta made the same
2109
point, arguing that "after the revolution" there would be "relations
2110
between anarchist groupings and those living under some kind of
2111
authority, between communist collectives and those living in
2112
an individualistic way." This is because anarchism "cannot be
2113
imposed". [_Life and Ideas_, p. 173, p. 21]
2114
2115
Needless to say, these "separatist societies" (which may or may
2116
not be "inegalitarian") would not be anarchist societies. If a
2117
group of people wanted to set up a capitalist, Marxist, Georgist
2118
or whatever kind of community then their right would be respected
2119
(although, of course, anarchists would seek to convince those
2120
who live in such a regime of the benefits of anarchism!). As
2121
Malatesta pointed out, "free and voluntary communism is
2122
ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live
2123
in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist
2124
-- as one wishes, always on condition that there is no
2125
oppression or exploitation of other" as "it is clear that
2126
all, and only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and
2127
recognise that each individual has an equal right to the means
2128
of production and to the full enjoyment of the product of
2129
his own labour, have anything in common with anarchism."
2130
[Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 33]
2131
2132
Ultimately, "it is not a question of right and wrong; it is
2133
a question of freedom for everybody. . . None can judge
2134
with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is nearest
2135
to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the
2136
greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom coupled with
2137
experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and
2138
what is best; and there can be no freedom if there is the
2139
denial of the freedom to err." [Op. Cit., p. 49]
2140
2141
Secondly, regarding "dissidents" who wanted to set up their own
2142
"inegalitarian separatist societies," if the term "inegalitarian"
2143
implies economic inequalities due to private property, the answer
2144
is that private property requires some kind of state, if not a
2145
public state then private security forces ("private-state capitalism"),
2146
as advocated by "anarcho"-capitalists, in order to protect private
2147
property. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists are asking if an anarchist
2148
society will allow the existence of states. Of course, in the territory
2149
that used to be claimed by a nation state a whole host of communities
2150
and societies will spring up -- but that does not make the non-anarchist
2151
ones anarchist!
2152
2153
Thus suppose that in a hypothetical libertarian socialist society, Bob
2154
tries to set up private security forces to protect certain means of
2155
production, e.g. farmland. By the hypothesis, if Bob merely wanted to
2156
work the land himself, there would be no reason for him go to the trouble
2157
of creating a private state to guard it, because use-rights guarantee that
2158
he has free access to the productive assets he needs to make a living.
2159
Thus, the only plausible reason Bob could have for claiming and guarding
2160
more farmland than he could use himself would be a desire to create a
2161
monopoly of land in order to exact tribute from others for the privilege
2162
of using it. But this would be an attempt to set up a system of feudal
2163
exploitation in the midst of a free community. Thus the community is
2164
justified in disarming this would-be parasite and ignoring his claims to
2165
"own" more land than he can use himself.
2166
2167
In other words, there is no "right" to adopt an "inegalitarian way of
2168
life" within a libertarian community, since such a right would have to
2169
be enforced by the creation of a coercive system of enslavement, which
2170
would mean the end of the "libertarian" community. To the contrary, the
2171
members of such a community have a right, guaranteed by "the people
2172
in arms," to resist such attempts to enslave them.
2173
2174
The statement that "left" anarchists have "occasionally" insisted that
2175
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivised is a
2176
distortion of the facts. No responsible left libertarian advocates
2177
forced collectivisation, i.e. compelling others to join collectives.
2178
Self-employment is always an option. This can be seen from Bakunin's
2179
works [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 200], Kropotkin's [_The Conquest of
2180
Bread_, p. 61 and _Act for Yourselves_, pp. 104-5] and Malatesta's [_Life
2181
and Ideas_, p. 99, p. 103]. So the anarchist opposition to forced
2182
collectivisation has always existed and, for anyone familiar with the
2183
ideas of social anarchism, very well know. Thus during the Spanish
2184
Revolution, small farmers who did not wish to join collective farms
2185
were allowed to keep as much land as they could work themselves. After
2186
perceiving the advantages of collectives, however, many joined them
2187
voluntarily (see Sam Dolgoff, ed., _The Anarchist Collectives_).
2188
2189
To claim that social anarchists "occasionally" oppose forced
2190
collectivisation is a smear, pure and simple, with little basis
2191
in anarchist activity and even less in anarchist theory. Anyone
2192
remotely familiar with the literature could not make such a mistake.
2193
2194
Finally, we should point out that under "anarcho"-capitalism there would
2195
be, according to Murray Rothbard, a "basic libertarian law code." Which
2196
means that under "anarcho"-capitalism, "egalitarian" communities could
2197
only come about within a "inegalitarian" legal framework! Thus, given
2198
that everything would be privatised, dissenters could only experiment
2199
if they could afford it *and* accepted the legal system based on
2200
capitalist property rights (and, of course, survive the competition
2201
of capitalist companies within the capitalist framework). As we have
2202
argued in sections B.4, F.3 and F.10, the capitalist market is not
2203
a level playing field -- which hinders experimentation. In other
2204
words, "anarcho"-capitalists has the abstract right to experiment
2205
(within the capitalist laws) but hinders the possibility to live
2206
under other regimes. And, we must point out, *why* should we have
2207
to *pay* the stealers of the earth for the privilege to life our
2208
own lives? Caplan, in effect, ignores the barriers to experimentation
2209
in his system while distorting the anarchist position.
2210
2211
5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
2212
2213
[10.] This section (How would anarcho-capitalism work?) contains Caplan's
2214
summary of arguments for "anarcho"-capitalism, which he describes as an
2215
offshoot of Libertarianism. Thus:
2216
2217
"So-called 'minarchist' libertarians such as Nozick have argued that the
2218
largest justified government was one which was limited to the protection
2219
of individuals and their private property against physical invasion;
2220
accordingly, they favour a government limited to supplying police, courts,
2221
a legal code, and national defence."
2222
2223
The first thing to note about this argument is that it is stated in such a
2224
way as to prejudice the reader against the left-libertarian critique of
2225
private property. The minarchist right-"libertarian," it is said, only
2226
wants to protect individuals and their private property against "physical
2227
invasion." But, because of the loose way in which the term "property" is
2228
generally used, the "private property" of most "individuals" is commonly
2229
thought of as *personal possessions,* i.e. cars, houses, clothing,
2230
etc. (For the left-libertarian distinction between private property and
2231
possessions, see B.3.1.) Therefore the argument makes it appear that
2232
right libertarians are in favour of protecting personal possessions
2233
whereas left-libertarians are not, thus conjuring up a world where,
2234
for example, there would be no protection against one's house being
2235
"physically invaded" by an intruder or a stranger stealing the shirt
2236
off one's back!
2237
2238
By lumping the protection of "individuals" together with the protection
2239
of their "private property," the argument implies that right libertarians
2240
are concerned with the welfare of the vast majority of the population,
2241
whereas in reality, the vast majority of "individuals" *do not own*
2242
any private property (i.e. means of production) -- only a handful of
2243
capitalists do. Moreover, these capitalists use their private property to
2244
exploit the working class, leading to impoverishment, alienation, etc.,
2245
and thus *damaging* most individuals rather than "protecting" them.
2246
2247
Caplan goes on:
2248
2249
"This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic theory,
2250
according to which private property and unregulated competition generally
2251
lead to both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly) a
2252
high rate of economic progress."
2253
2254
Caplan does not mention the obvious problems with this "theory," e.g. that
2255
during the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the US there was vast
2256
wealth disparity, with an enormous mass of impoverished people living in
2257
slums in the major cities -- hardly an "efficient" allocation of resources
2258
or an example of "progress." Of course, if one defines "efficiency" as
2259
"the most effective means of exploiting the working class" and "progress"
2260
as "a high rate of profit for investors," then the conclusion of the
2261
"theory" does indeed follow.
2262
2263
And let us not forget that it is general equilibrium theory which
2264
predicts that unregulated competition will produce an efficient
2265
allocation of resources. However, as we noted in section C.1, such
2266
a model has little to do with any real economy. This means that
2267
there is no real reason to assume an efficient outcome of capitalist
2268
economies. Concentrations of economic power and wealth can easily
2269
skew outcomes to favour the haves over the have-nots (as history
2270
again and again shows).
2271
2272
Moreover, the capitalism can easily lead to resources being
2273
allocated to the most profitable uses rather than those which
2274
are most needed by individuals. A classic example is in the
2275
case of famines. Amartya Sen (who won the 1998 Nobel Prize
2276
for economics) developed an "entitlement" approach to the study
2277
of famine. This approach starts with the insight that having
2278
food available in a country or region does not mean everyone
2279
living there is "entitled" to it. In market economies, people
2280
are entitled to food according to their ability to produce it
2281
for themselves or to pay or swap for it. In capitalist economies,
2282
most people are entitled to food only if they can sell their
2283
labour/liberty to those who own the means of life (which
2284
increases the economic insecurity of wage workers).
2285
2286
If some group loses its entitlement to food, whether there is a
2287
decline in the available supply or not, a famine can occur. This
2288
may seem obvious, yet before - and after - Sen, famine studies
2289
have remained fixated on the drop in food available instead of
2290
whether specific social groups are entitled to it. Thus even a
2291
relatively success economy can price workers out of the food
2292
market (a depressed economy brings the contradiction between
2293
need and profit -- use value and exchange value -- even more
2294
to the forefront). This "pricing out" can occur especially if
2295
food can get higher prices (and so profits) elsewhere -- for
2296
example the Irish famine of 1848 and sub-Saharan famines of
2297
the 1980s saw food being exported from famine areas to areas
2298
where it could fetch a higher price. In other words, market
2299
forces can skew resource allocation away from where it is most
2300
needed to where it can generate a profit. As anarchist George
2301
Barret noted decades before Sen:
2302
2303
"Today the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits.
2304
If there is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's
2305
passing whim than there is in feeding hungry children, then
2306
competition brings us in feverish haste to supply the former,
2307
whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the latter,
2308
or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is
2309
how it works out." [_Objectives to Anarchism_]
2310
2311
In other words, inequality skews resource allocation towards
2312
the wealthy. While such a situation may be "efficient allocation
2313
of resources" from the perspective of the capitalist, it is hardly
2314
so from a social perspective (i.e. one that considers *all* individual
2315
needs rather than "effective demand").
2316
2317
Furthermore, if we look at the stock market (a key aspect of any
2318
capitalist system) we discover a strong tendencies *against* the
2319
efficient allocation of resources. The stock market often experiences
2320
"bubbles" and becomes significantly over-valued. An inflated stock
2321
market badly distorts investment decisions. For example, if Internet
2322
companies are wildly over-valued then the sale of shares of new
2323
Internet companies or the providing of start-up capital will drain
2324
away savings that could be more productively used elsewhere. The real
2325
economy will pay a heavy price from such misdirected investment and,
2326
more importantly, resources are *not* efficiency allocated as the
2327
stock market skews resources into the apparently more profitable
2328
areas and away from where they could be used to satisfy other needs.
2329
2330
The stock market is also a source of other inefficiencies. Supporters
2331
of "free-market" capitalism always argued that the Stalinist system
2332
of central planning created a perverse set of incentives to managers.
2333
In effect, the system penalised honest managers and encouraged
2334
the flow of *dis*-information. This lead to information being
2335
distorted and resources inefficiently allocated and wasted.
2336
Unfortunately the stock market also creates its own set of perverse
2337
responses and mis-information. Doug Henwood argues that "something
2338
like a prisoners' dilemma prevails in relations between managers
2339
and the stock market. Even if participants are aware of an upward
2340
bias to earnings estimates, and even if they correct for it,
2341
managers still have an incentive to try and fool the market. If
2342
you tell the truth, your accurate estimates will be marked
2343
down by a sceptical market. So its entirely rational for
2344
managers to boost profits in the short term, either through
2345
accounting gimmickry or by making only investments with
2346
quick paybacks." He goes on to note that "[i]f the markets
2347
see high costs as bad, and low costs as good, then firms may
2348
shun expensive investments because they will be taken as
2349
signs of managerial incompetence. Throughout the late 1980s
2350
and early 1990s, the stock market rewarded firms announcing
2351
write-offs and mass firings -- a bulimic strategy of
2352
management -- since the cost cutting was seen as contributing
2353
rather quickly to profits. Firms and economies can't get richer
2354
by starving themselves, but stock market investors can get
2355
richer when the companies they own go hungry. As for the long
2356
term, well, that's someone else's problem." [_Wall Street_,
2357
p. 171]
2358
2359
This means that resources are allocated to short term projects,
2360
those that enrich the investors now rather than produce long
2361
term growth and benefits later. This results in slower and
2362
more unstable investment than less market centred economies,
2363
as well as greater instability over the business cycle [Op.
2364
Cit., pp. 174-5] Thus the claim that capitalism results in
2365
the "efficient" allocation of resources is only true if we
2366
assume "efficient" equals highest profits for capitalists.
2367
As Henwood summarises, "the US financial system performs
2368
dismally at its advertised task, that of efficiently directing
2369
society's savings towards their optimal investment pursuits.
2370
The system is stupefyingly expensive, gives terrible signals,
2371
and has surprisingly little to do with real investment."
2372
[Op. Cit., p. 3]
2373
2374
Moreover, the claim that laissez-faire economies produce a high rate
2375
of economic progress can be questioned on the empirical evidence available.
2376
For example, from the 1970s onwards there has been a strong tendency
2377
towards economic deregulation. However, this tendency has been associated
2378
with a *slow down* of economic growth. For example, "[g]rowth rates,
2379
investment rates and productivity rates are all lower now than in
2380
the [Keynesian post-war] Golden Age, and there is evidence that the
2381
trend rate of growth -- the underlying growth rate -- has also
2382
decreased." Before the Thatcher pro-market reforms, the British
2383
economy grew by 2.4% in the 1970s. After Thatcher's election in
2384
1979, growth decreased to 2% in the 1980s and to 1.2% in the 1990s.
2385
In the USA, we find a similar pattern. Growth was 4.4% in the 1960s,
2386
3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half
2387
of the 1990s [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, _The Age of Insecurity_,
2388
p. 236]. Moreover, in terms of inflation-adjusted GDP per capita
2389
and productivity, the US had the worse performance out of the US,
2390
UK, Japan, Italy, France, Canada and Australia between 1970 and
2391
1995 [Marc-Anfre Pigeon and L. Randall Wray, _Demand Constraints
2392
and Economic Growth_]. Given that the US is usually considered the
2393
most laissez-faire out of these 7 countries, Caplan's claim of
2394
high progress for deregulated systems seems at odds with this
2395
evidence.
2396
2397
As far as technological innovation goes, it is also not clear that
2398
deregulation has aided that process. Much of our modern technology
2399
owns its origins to the US Pentagon system, in which public money
2400
is provided to companies for military R&D purposes. Once the
2401
technology has been proven viable, the companies involved can
2402
sell their public subsidised products for private profit. The
2403
computer industry (as we point out in section J.4.7) is a classic
2404
example of this -- indeed it is unlikely whether we would have
2405
computers or the internet if we had waited for capitalists to
2406
development them. So whether a totally deregulated capitalism would
2407
have as high a rate of technological progress is a moot point.
2408
2409
So, it seems likely that it is only the *assumption* that the
2410
free capitalist market will generate "an efficient allocation of
2411
resources and (more importantly) a high rate of economic progress."
2412
Empirical evidence points the other way -- namely, that state aided
2413
capitalism provides an approximation of these claims. Indeed, if
2414
we look at the example of the British Empire (which pursued a
2415
strong free trade and laissez-faire policy over the areas it had
2416
invaded) we can suggest that the opposite may be true. After 25
2417
prosperous years of fast growth (3.5 per cent), after 1873 Britain
2418
had 40 years of slow growth (1.5 per cent), the last 14 years of
2419
which were the worse -- with productivity declining, GDP stagnant
2420
and home investment halved. [Nicholas Kaldor, _Further Essays
2421
on Applied Economics_, p. 239] In comparison, those countries
2422
which embraced protectionism (such as Germany and the USA)
2423
industrialised successfully and become competitors with the
2424
UK. Indeed, these new competitors grew in time to be efficient
2425
competitors of Britain not only in foreign markets but also
2426
in Britain's home market. The result was that "for fifty years
2427
Britain's GDP grew very slowly relative to the more successful
2428
of the newer industrialised countries, who overtook her, one
2429
after another, in the volume of manufacturing production
2430
and in exports and finally in real income per head." [Op. Cit.,
2431
p. xxvi] Indeed, "America's growth and productivity rates
2432
were higher when tariffs were steep than when they came
2433
down." [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 277]
2434
2435
It is possible to explain almost everything that has ever
2436
happened in the world economy as evidence not of the failure
2437
of markets but rather of what happens when markets are not
2438
able to operate freely. Indeed, this is the right-libertarian
2439
position in a nut shell. However, it does seem strange that
2440
movements towards increased freedom for markets produce worse
2441
results than the old, more regulated, way. Similarly it seems
2442
strange that the country that embraced laissez-faire and free
2443
trade (Britain) did *worse* than those which embraced protectionism
2444
(USA, Germany, etc.).
2445
2446
It could always be argued that the protectionist countries had
2447
embraced free trade their economies would have done even better.
2448
This is, of course, a possibility -- if somewhat unlikely. After
2449
all, the argument for laissez-faire and free trade is that it
2450
benefits all parties, even if it is embraced unilaterally. That
2451
Britain obviously did not benefit suggests a flaw in the theory
2452
(and that no country *has* industrialised without protectionism
2453
suggests likewise). Unfortunately, free-market capitalist economics
2454
lends itself to a mind frame that ensures that nothing could
2455
happen in the real world that would could ever change its
2456
supporters minds about anything.
2457
2458
Free trade, it could be argued, benefits only those who have
2459
established themselves in the market -- that is, have market
2460
power. Thus Britain could initially benefit from free trade
2461
as it was the only industrialised nation (and even *its*
2462
early industrialisation cannot be divorced from its initial
2463
mercantilist policies). This position of strength allowed them
2464
to dominate and destroy possible competitors (as Kaldor points
2465
out, "[w]here the British succeeded in gaining free entry for
2466
its goods. . . it had disastrous effects on local manufactures
2467
and employment." [Op. Cit., p. xxvi]). This would revert the
2468
other country back towards agriculture, an industry with
2469
diminishing returns to scale (manufacturing, in contrast,
2470
has increasing returns) and ensure Britain's position of
2471
power.
2472
2473
The use of protection, however, sheltered the home industries
2474
of other countries and gave them the foothold required to
2475
compete with Britain. In addition, Britains continual adherence
2476
to free trade meant that a lot of *new* industries (such as
2477
chemical and electrical ones) could not be properly established.
2478
This combination contributed to free trade leading to stunted
2479
growth, in stark contrast to the arguments of neo-classical
2480
economics.
2481
2482
Of course, we will be accused of supporting protectionism by
2483
recounting these facts. That is not the case, as protectionism
2484
is used as a means of "proletarianising" a nation (as we
2485
discuss in section F.8). Rather we are presenting evidence
2486
to refute a claim that deregulated capitalism will lead to
2487
higher growth. Thus, we suggest, the history of "actually
2488
existing" capitalism indicates that Caplan's claim that
2489
deregulated capitalism will result "a high rate of economic
2490
progress" may be little more than an assumption. True, it is
2491
an assumption of neo-classical economics, but empirical evidence
2492
suggests that assumption is as unfounded as the rest of that
2493
theory.
2494
2495
Next we get to the meat of the defence of "anarcho"-capitalism:
2496
2497
"Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own logic
2498
against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state could
2499
not be turned over to the free market. And so, the anarcho-capitalist
2500
imagines that police services could be sold by freely competitive firms;
2501
that a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between
2502
firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom,
2503
precedent, and contract."
2504
2505
Indeed, the functions in question could certainly be turned over to the
2506
"free" market, as was done in certain areas of the US during the 19th
2507
century, e.g. the coal towns that were virtually owned by private coal
2508
companies. We have already discussed the negative impact of that
2509
experiment on the working class in section F.6.2. Our objection is not
2510
that such privatisation cannot be done, but that it is an error to call
2511
it a form of anarchism. In reality it is an extreme form of laissez-faire
2512
capitalism, which is the exact opposite of anarchism. The defence of
2513
private power by private police is hardly a move towards the end of
2514
authority, nor are collections of private states an example of anarchism.
2515
2516
Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism does not desire the end of the state,
2517
just a change in its form, can be seen from Caplan's own arguments. He
2518
states that "the remaining functions of the state" should be "turned
2519
over to the free market." Thus the state (and its functions, primarily
2520
the defence of capitalist property rights) is *privatised* and not, in
2521
fact, abolished. In effect, the "anarcho"-capitalist seeks to abolish
2522
the state by calling it something else.
2523
2524
Caplan:
2525
2526
"The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing
2527
reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration and
2528
mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability to
2529
supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of
2530
necessity a government monopoly."
2531
2532
It is questionable that "modern society" *as such* has increased
2533
its reliance on "private security guards, gated communities" and so on.
2534
Rather, it is the *wealthy* who have increased their reliance on these
2535
forms of private defence. Indeed it is strange to hear a right-libertarian
2536
even use the term "society" as, according to that ideology, society does
2537
not exist! Perhaps the term "society" is used to hide the class nature
2538
of these developments? As for "gated communities" it is clear that
2539
their inhabitants would object if the rest of society gated themselves
2540
from them! But such is the logic of such developments -- but the
2541
gated communities want it both ways. They seek to exclude the rest of
2542
society from their communities while expected to be given access to
2543
that society. Needless to say, Caplan fails to see that liberty for
2544
the rich can mean oppression for the working class -- "we who belong
2545
to the proletaire class, property excommunicates us!" [Proudhon,
2546
_What is Property?_, p. 105]
2547
2548
That the law code of the state is being defended by private companies is
2549
hardly a step towards anarchy. This indicates exactly why an "anarcho"-
2550
capitalist system will be a collection of private states united around a
2551
common, capitalistic, and hierarchical law code. In addition, this system
2552
does not abolish the monopoly of government over society represented by
2553
the "general libertarian law code," nor the monopoly of power that owners
2554
have over their property and those who use it. The difference between
2555
public and private statism is that the boss can select which law
2556
enforcement agents will enforce his or her power.
2557
2558
The threat to freedom and justice for the working class is clear. The
2559
thug-like nature of many private security guards enforcing private power
2560
is well documented. For example, the beating of protesters by "private
2561
cops" is a common sight in anti-motorway campaigns or when animal right
2562
activists attempt to disrupt fox hunts. The shooting of strikers during
2563
strikes occurred during the peak period of American laissez-faire
2564
capitalism. However, as most forms of protest involve the violation of
2565
"absolute" property rights, the "justice" system under "anarcho"-capitalism
2566
would undoubtedly fine the victims of such attacks by private cops.
2567
2568
It is also interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalist "hails" what are
2569
actually symptoms of social breakdown under capitalism. With increasing
2570
wealth disparity, poverty, and chronic high unemployment, society is becoming
2571
polarised into those who can afford to live in secure, gated communities
2572
and those who cannot. The latter are increasingly marginalised in ghettos
2573
and poor neighbourhoods where drug-dealing, prostitution, and theft become
2574
main forms of livelihood, with gangs offering a feudalistic type of
2575
"protection" to those who join or pay tribute to them. Under
2576
"anarcho"-capitalism, the only change would be that drug-dealing and
2577
prostitution would be legalised and gangs could start calling themselves
2578
"defence companies."
2579
2580
Caplan:
2581
2582
"In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government services
2583
would take over _all_ legitimate security services. One plausible market
2584
structure would involve individuals subscribing to one of a large number
2585
of competing police services; these police services would then set up
2586
contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between members of
2587
each others' agencies. Alternately, police services might be 'bundled'
2588
with housing services, just as landlords often bundle water and power
2589
with rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to
2590
residents in gated communities and apartment complexes."
2591
2592
This is a scenario designed with the upper classes in mind and a few
2593
working class people, i.e. those with *some* property (for example, a
2594
house) -- sometimes labelled the "middle class". But under capitalism,
2595
the tendency toward capital concentration leads to increasing wealth
2596
polarisation, which means a shrinking "middle class" (i.e. working
2597
class with decent jobs and their own homes) and a growing "underclass"
2598
(i.e. working class people without a decent job). Ironically enough,
2599
America (with one of the most laissez-faire capitalist systems) is
2600
also the Western nation with the *smallest* "middle class" and
2601
wealth concentration has steadily increased since the 1970s.
2602
Thus the number of people who could afford to buy protection and
2603
"justice" from the best companies would continually decrease. For
2604
this reason there would be a growing number of people at the mercy
2605
of the rich and powerful, particularly when it comes to matters
2606
concerning employment, which is the main way in which the poor
2607
would be victimised by the rich and powerful (as is indeed the
2608
case now).
2609
2610
Of course, if landlords *do* "bundle" police services in their
2611
contracts this means that they are determining the monopoly of
2612
force over the property in question. Tenants would "consent"
2613
to the police force and the laws of the landlord in exactly
2614
the same way emigrants "consent" to the laws and government of,
2615
say, the USA when they move there. Rather than show the difference
2616
between statism and capitalism, Caplan has indicated their
2617
essential commonality. For the proletarian, property is but
2618
another form of state. For this reason anarchists would agree
2619
with when he wrote that:
2620
2621
"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense
2622
possessions in lands, should impose laws on those who
2623
want to establish themselves there, and that he should
2624
only allow them to do so on condition that they accept
2625
his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I
2626
can still conceive. But how can I conceive such a treaty,
2627
which presupposes anterior rights, could be the first
2628
foundation of law? Would not this tyrannical act contain
2629
a double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land
2630
and that on the liberty of the inhabitants?" [_The Social
2631
Contract and Discourses_, p. 316]
2632
2633
Caplan:
2634
2635
"The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police
2636
would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual
2637
rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield
2638
to jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second,
2639
firms will want to develop long-term business relationships, and hence
2640
be willing to negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term
2641
profitability. And third, aggressive firms would be likely to attract
2642
only high-risk clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs
2643
(a problem parallel to the well-known 'adverse selection problem' in
2644
e.g. medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people are
2645
especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the price when
2646
riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a
2647
uniform price regardless of risk)."
2648
2649
The theory that "failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly
2650
destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits" can be faulted in two
2651
ways. Firstly, if warfare would be bad for profits, what is to stop a
2652
large "defence association" from ignoring a smaller one's claim? If
2653
warfare were "bad for business," it would be even worse for a small
2654
company without the capital to survive a conflict, which could give big
2655
"defence associations" the leverage to force compliance with their business
2656
interests. Price wars are often bad for business, but companies sometimes
2657
start them if they think they can win. Needless to say, demand would exist
2658
for such a service (unless you assume a transformation in the "human
2659
nature" generated by capitalism -- an unlikely situation and one
2660
"anarcho"-capitalists usually deny is required for their system to
2661
work). Secondly -- and this is equally, if not more, likely -- a
2662
"balance of power" method to stop warfare has little to recommend it
2663
from history. This can be seen from the First World War and feudal
2664
society.
2665
2666
What the "anarcho"-capitalist is describing is essentially a system of
2667
"industrial feudalism" wherein people contract for "protection" with armed
2668
gangs of their choice. Feudal societies have never been known to be
2669
peaceful, even though war is always "unprofitable" for one side or the
2670
other or both. The argument fails to consider that "defence companies,"
2671
whether they be called police forces, paramilitaries or full-blown armies,
2672
tend to attract the "martial" type of authoritarian personality, and that this
2673
type of "macho" personality thrives on and finds its reason for existence in
2674
armed conflict and other forms of interpersonal violence and intimidation.
2675
Hence feudal society is continually wracked by battles between the forces
2676
of opposing warlords, because such conflicts allow the combatants a chance to
2677
"prove their manhood," vent their aggression, obtain honours and titles,
2678
advance in the ranks, obtain spoils, etc. The "anarcho" capitalist has
2679
given no reason why warfare among legalised gangs would not continue under
2680
industrial feudalism, except the extremely lame reason that it would not
2681
be profitable -- a reason that has never prevented war in any known feudal
2682
society.
2683
2684
It should be noted that the above is not an argument from "original
2685
sin." Feudal societies are characterised by conflict between opposing
2686
"protection agencies" not because of the innate depravity of human beings
2687
but because of a social structure based on private property and hierarchy,
2688
which brings out the latent capacities for violence, domination, greed,
2689
etc. that humans have by creating a financial incentive to be so. But this
2690
is not to say that a different social structure would not bring out latent
2691
capacities for much different qualities like sharing, peaceableness, and
2692
co-operation, which human beings also have. In fact, as Kropotkin argued
2693
in _Mutual Aid_ and as recent anthropologists have confirmed in greater
2694
detail, ancient societies based on communal ownership of productive assets
2695
and little social hierarchy were basically peaceful, with no signs of
2696
warfare for thousands of years.
2697
2698
However, let us assume that such a competitive system does actually
2699
work as described. Caplan, in effect, argues that competition will
2700
generate co-operation. This is due to the nature of the market in
2701
question -- defence (and so peace) is dependent on firms working
2702
together as the commodity "peace" cannot be supplied by one firm.
2703
However, this co-operation does not, for some reason, become *collusion*
2704
between the firms in question. According to "anarcho"-capitalists
2705
this competitive system not only produces co-operation, it excludes
2706
"defence" firms making agreements to fix monopoly profits (i.e.
2707
co-operation that benefits the firms in question). Why does the
2708
market produce beneficial co-operation to everyone but not
2709
collusion for the firms in question? Collusion is when firms
2710
have "business relationships" and "negotiate in good faith" to
2711
insure their profitability by agreeing not to compete aggressively
2712
against each other in order to exploit the market. Obviously in
2713
"anarcho"-capitalism the firms in question only use their powers
2714
for good!
2715
2716
Needless to say, the "anarcho"-capitalist will object and argue
2717
that competition will ensure that collusion will not occur.
2718
However, given that co-operation is required between all firms
2719
in order to provide the commodity "peace" this places the
2720
"anarcho"-capitalist in a bind. As Caplan notes, "aggressive"
2721
firms are "likely to attract only high-risk clients and thus
2722
suffer from extraordinarily high costs." From the perspective
2723
of the colluding firms, a new entry into their market is, by
2724
definition, aggressive. If the colluding firms do not co-operate
2725
with the new competitor, then it will suffer from "extraordinarily
2726
high costs" and either go out of business or join the co-operators.
2727
If the new entry could survive in the face of the colluding firms
2728
hostility then so could "bad" defence firms, ones that ignored
2729
the market standards.
2730
2731
So the "anarcho"-capitalist faces two options. Either an "aggressive"
2732
firm cannot survive or it can. If it cannot then the very reason
2733
why it cannot ensures that collusion is built into the market and
2734
while the system is peaceful it is based on an effective monopoly
2735
of colluding firms who charge monopoly profits. This, in effect,
2736
is a state under the "anarcho"-capitalist's definition as a property
2737
owner cannot freely select their own "protection" -- they are limited
2738
to the firms (and laws) provided by the co-operating firms. Or an
2739
"aggressive" firm can survive, violence is commonplace and chaos
2740
ensures.
2741
2742
Caplan's passing reference to the "adverse selection problem" in medical
2743
insurance suggests another problem with "anarcho"-capitalism. The problem
2744
is that high-risk people are especially likely to seek protection, which
2745
drives up the price for, as "anarcho"-capitalists themselves note, areas
2746
with high crime levels "will be bad for profits," as hardware and personnel
2747
costs will be correspondingly higher. This means that the price for "protection"
2748
in areas which need it most will be far higher than for areas which do not
2749
need it. As poor areas are generally more crime afflicted than rich areas,
2750
"anarcho"-capitalism may see vast sections of the population not able to
2751
afford "protection" (just as they may not be about to afford health care
2752
and other essential services). Indeed, "protection services" which try to
2753
provide cheap services to "high-risk" areas will be at an competitive
2754
disadvantage in relation to those who do not, as the "high-risk" areas
2755
will hurt profits and companies without "high-risk" "customers" could
2756
undercut those that have.
2757
2758
Caplan:
2759
2760
"Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that their
2761
'private police agencies' would be equivalent to today's Mafia -- the cost
2762
advantages of open, legitimate business would make 'criminal police'
2763
uncompetitive. (Moreover, they argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the
2764
artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs,
2765
prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might
2766
kill each other over turf, but liquor-store owners generally do not.)"
2767
2768
As we have pointed out in section F.6, the "Mafia" objection
2769
to "anarcho"-capitalist defence companies is a red herring. The
2770
biggest problem would not be "criminal police" but the fact that
2771
working people and tenants would subject to the rules, power and
2772
laws of the property owners, the rich would be able to buy better
2773
police protection and "justice" than the poor and that the "general"
2774
law code these companies would defend would be slanted towards the
2775
interests and power of the capitalist class (defending capitalist
2776
property rights and the proprietors power). And as we also noted,
2777
such a system has already been tried in 19th-century and early 20th
2778
America, with the result that the rich reduced the working class to
2779
a serf-like existence, capitalist production undermined independent
2780
producers (to the annoyance of individualist anarchists at the time),
2781
and the result was the emergence of the corporate America that
2782
"anarcho"-capitalists say they oppose.
2783
2784
Caplan argues that "liquor-store owners" do not generally kill each
2785
other over turf. This is true (but then again they do not have
2786
access to their own private cops currently so perhaps this could
2787
change). But the company owners who created their own private
2788
police forces and armies in America's past *did* allow their
2789
goons to attack and murder union organisers and strikers. Let
2790
us look at Henry Ford's Service Department (private police
2791
force) in action:
2792
2793
"In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march
2794
up to the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn. . . The machine
2795
guns of the Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company's
2796
Service Department killed [four] and wounded over a score
2797
of others. . . Ford was fundamentally and entirely opposed
2798
to trade unions. The idea of working men questioning his
2799
prerogatives as an owner was outrageous. . . [T]he River
2800
Rouge plant. . . was dominated by the autocratic regime of
2801
Bennett's service men. Bennett . . organise[d] and train[ed]
2802
the three and a half thousand private policemen employed by
2803
Ford. His task was to maintain discipline amongst the work
2804
force, protect Ford's property [and power], and prevent
2805
unionisation. . . Frank Murphy, the mayor of Detroit,
2806
claimed that 'Henry Ford employs some of the worst
2807
gangsters in our city.' The claim was well based. Ford's
2808
Service Department policed the gates of his plants,
2809
infiltrated emergent groups of union activists, posed
2810
as workers to spy on men on the line. . . Under this
2811
tyranny the Ford worker had no security, no rights. So
2812
much so that any information about the state of things
2813
within the plant could only be freely obtained from
2814
ex-Ford workers." [Huw Beynon, _Working for Ford_,
2815
pp. 29-30]
2816
2817
The private police attacked women workers handing out
2818
pro-union handbills and gave them "a serve beating."
2819
At Kansas and Dallas "similar beatings were handed out
2820
to the union men." [Op. Cit., p. 34] This use of private
2821
police to control the work force was not unique. General
2822
Motors "spent one million dollars on espionage, employing
2823
fourteen detective agencies and two hundred spies at one
2824
time [between 1933 and 1936]. The Pinkerton Detective
2825
Agency found anti-unionism its most lucrative activity."
2826
[Op. Cit., p. 32] We must also note that the Pinkerton's
2827
had been selling their private police services for decades
2828
before the 1930s. In the 1870s, they had infiltrated and
2829
destroyed the Molly Maguires (a secret organisation
2830
Irish miners had developed to fight the coal bosses).
2831
For over 60 years the Pinkerton Detective Agency had
2832
"specialised in providing spies, agent provocateurs, and
2833
private armed forces for employers combating labour
2834
organisations." By 1892 it "had provided its services
2835
for management in seventy major labour disputes, and its
2836
2 000 active agents and 30 000 reserves totalled more
2837
than the standing army of the nation." [Jeremy Brecher,
2838
_Strike!_, p. 9 and p. 55] With this force available,
2839
little wonder unions found it so hard to survive in the
2840
USA. Given that unions could be considered as "defence"
2841
agencies for workers, this suggests a picture of how
2842
"anarcho"-capitalism may work in practice.
2843
2844
It could be argued that, in the end, the union was recognised
2845
by the Ford company. However, this occurred after the New
2846
Deal was in place (which helped the process), after years
2847
of illegal activity (by definition union activism on Ford
2848
property was an illegal act) and extremely militant strikes.
2849
Given that the union agreement occurred nearly 40 years
2850
after Ford was formed *and* in a legal situation violently
2851
at odds with "anarcho"-capitalism (or even minimal statist
2852
capitalism), we would be justified in wondering if unionisation
2853
would ever have occurred at Ford and if Ford's private
2854
police state would ever have been reformed.
2855
2856
Of course, from an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective the
2857
only limitation in the Ford workers' liberty was the fact
2858
they had to pay taxes to the US government. The regime at
2859
Ford could *not* restrict their liberty as no one forced
2860
them to work for the company. Needless to say, an
2861
"anarcho"-capitalist would reject out of hand the argument
2862
that no-one forced the citizen to entry or remain in the
2863
USA and so they consented to taxation, the government's
2864
laws and so on.
2865
2866
This is more than a history lesson. Such private police
2867
forces are on the rise again (see "Armed and Dangerous:
2868
Private Police on the March" by Mike Zielinski, _Covert Action
2869
Quarterly_, no. 54, Fall, 1995 for example). This system of
2870
private police (as demonstrated by Ford) is just one of the
2871
hidden aspects of Caplan's comment that the "anarcho"-capitalist
2872
"typically hails modern society's increasing reliance on
2873
private security guards. . . and other demonstrations of
2874
the free market's ability to supply the defensive and legal
2875
services normally assumed to be of necessity a government
2876
monopoly."
2877
2878
Needless to say, private police states are not a step forward
2879
in anarchist eyes.
2880
2881
Caplan:
2882
2883
"Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no objection
2884
to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim that punishment
2885
does not deter crime to be the height of naivete. Traditional punishment
2886
might be meted out after a conviction by a neutral arbitrator; or a system
2887
of monetary restitution (probably in conjunction with a prison factory
2888
system) might exist instead."
2889
2890
Let us note first that in disputes between the capitalist class and the
2891
working class, there would be no "neutral arbitrator," because the rich
2892
would either own the arbitration company or influence/control it through
2893
the power of the purse (see section F.6). In addition, "successful"
2894
arbitrators would also be wealthy, therefore making neutrality even
2895
more unlikely. Moreover, given that the laws the "neutral arbitrator"
2896
would be using are based on capitalist property rights, the powers and
2897
privileges of the owner are built into the system from the start.
2898
2899
Second, the left-libertarian critique of punishment does not rest, as
2900
"anarcho"-capitalists claim, on the naive view that intimidation and
2901
coercion aren't effective in controlling behaviour. Rather, it rests on
2902
the premise that capitalist societies produce large numbers of criminals,
2903
whereas societies based on equality and community ownership of productive
2904
assets do not.
2905
2906
The argument for this is that societies based on private property and
2907
hierarchy inevitably lead to a huge gap between the haves and the
2908
have-nots, with the latter sunk in poverty, alienation, resentment,
2909
anger, and hopelessness, while at the same time such societies promote
2910
greed, ambition, ruthlessness, deceit, and other aspects of competitive
2911
individualism that destroy communal values like sharing, co-operation, and
2912
mutual aid. Thus in capitalist societies, the vast majority of "crime"
2913
turns out to be so-called "crimes against property," which can be traced
2914
to poverty and the grossly unfair distribution of wealth. Where the top
2915
one percent of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90
2916
percent combined, it is no wonder that a considerable number of those on
2917
the bottom should try to recoup illegally some of the mal-distributed
2918
wealth they cannot obtain legally. (In this they are encouraged by the
2919
bad example of the ruling class, whose parasitic ways of making a living
2920
would be classified as criminal if the mechanisms for defining "criminal
2921
behaviour" were not controlled by the ruling class itself.) And most of
2922
the remaining "crimes against persons" can be traced to the alienation,
2923
dehumanisation, frustration, rage, and other negative emotions produced
2924
by the inhumane and unjust economic system.
2925
2926
Thus it is only in our societies like ours, with their wholesale
2927
manufacture of many different kinds of criminals, that punishment
2928
appears to be the only possible way to discourage "crime." From the
2929
left-libertarian perspective, however, the punitive approach is a
2930
band-aid measure that does not get to the real root of the problem --
2931
a problem that lies in the structure of the system itself. The real
2932
solution is the creation of a non-hierarchical society based on communal
2933
ownership of productive assets, which, by eliminating poverty and the
2934
other negative effects of capitalism, would greatly reduce the incidence
2935
of criminal behaviour and so the need for punitive countermeasures.
2936
2937
Finally, two more points on private prisons. Firstly, as to the
2938
desirability of a "prison factory system," we will merely note
2939
that, given the capitalist principle of "grow-or-die," if punishing
2940
crime becomes a business, one can be sure that those who profit
2941
from it will find ways to ensure that the "criminal" population
2942
keeps expanding at a rate sufficient to maintain a high rate of profit
2943
and growth. After all, the logic of a "prison factory system" is
2944
self-defeating. If the aim of prison is to deter crime (as some
2945
claim) and if a private prison system will meet that aim, then a
2946
successful private prison system will stop crime, which, in turn,
2947
will put them out of business! Thus a "prison factory system" cannot
2948
aim to be efficient (i.e. stop crime).
2949
2950
Secondly, Caplan does not mention the effect of prison labour on the
2951
wages, job conditions and market position of workers. Having a sizeable
2952
proportion of the working population labouring in prison would have a
2953
serious impact on the bargaining power of workers. How could workers
2954
outside of prison compete with such a regime of labour discipline
2955
without submitting to prison-like conditions themselves? Unsurprisingly,
2956
US history again presents some insight into this. As Noam Chomsky
2957
notes, the "rapid industrial development in the southeastern region
2958
[of America] a century ago was based on (Black) convict labour,
2959
leased to the highest bidder." Chomsky quotes expert Alex Lichtenstein
2960
comments that Southern Industrialists pointed out that convict
2961
labour was "more reliable and productive than free labour" and
2962
that it overcomes the problem of labour turnover and instability.
2963
It also "remove[d] all danger and cost of strikes" and that it
2964
lowers wages for "free labour" (i.e. wage labour). The US Bureau
2965
of Labor reported that "mine owners [in Alabama] say they could
2966
not work at a profit without the lowering effect in wages of
2967
convict-labour competition." [_The Umbrella of US Power_, p. 32]
2968
2969
Needless to say, Caplan fails to mention this aspect of
2970
"anarcho"-capitalism (just as he fails to mention the example
2971
of Ford's private police state). Perhaps an "anarcho"-capitalist
2972
will say that prison labour will be less productive than wage
2973
labour and so workers have little to fear, but this makes little
2974
sense. If wage labour is more productive then prison labour will
2975
not find a market (and then what for the prisoners? Will profit-maximising
2976
companies *really* invest in an industry with such high over-heads
2977
as maintaining prisoners for free?). Thus it seems more than likely
2978
that any "prison-factory system" will be as productive as the
2979
surrounding wage-labour ones, thus forcing down their wages and
2980
the conditions of labour. For capitalists this would be ideal,
2981
however for the vast majority a different conclusion must be
2982
drawn.
2983
2984
Caplan:
2985
2986
"Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the
2987
apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David
2988
Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the
2989
need for a generally recognised libertarian legal code (which he thinks
2990
could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American
2991
common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of
2992
plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands
2993
of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is
2994
probably overstated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for
2995
consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the
2996
law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property
2997
right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits
2998
that 'focal points' including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe
2999
and somewhat standardise the menu of available legal codes."
3000
3001
The argument that "consumer demand" would determine a "philosophically
3002
neutral" content of the law cannot be sustained. Any law code will
3003
reflect the philosophy of those who create it. Under "anarcho"-capitalism,
3004
as we have noted (see section F.6), the values of the capitalist rich
3005
will be dominant and will shape the law code and justice system, as they
3006
do now, only more so. The law code will therefore continue to give priority
3007
to the protection of private property over human values; those who have the
3008
most money will continue being able to hire the best lawyers; and the best
3009
(i.e. most highly paid) judges will be inclined to side with the wealthy and
3010
to rule in their interests, out of class loyalty (and personal interests).
3011
3012
Moreover, given that the law code exists to protect capitalist property
3013
rights, how can it be "philosophically neutral" with that basis? How
3014
would "competing" property frameworks co-exist? If a defence agency
3015
allowed squatting and another (hired by the property owner) did not,
3016
there is no way (bar force) a conflict could be resolved. Then the
3017
firm with the most resources would win. "Anarcho"-capitalism, in effect,
3018
smuggles into the foundation of their system a distinctly *non*-neutral
3019
philosophy, namely capitalism. Those who reject such a basis may
3020
end up sharing the fate of tribal peoples who rejected that system of
3021
property rights, for example, the Native Americans.
3022
3023
In other words, in terms of outcome the whole system would favour
3024
*capitalist* values and so not be "philosophically neutral." The law
3025
would be favourable to employers rather than workers, manufacturers
3026
rather than consumers, and landlords rather than tenants. Indeed,
3027
from the "anarcho"-capitalist perspective the rules that benefit
3028
employers, landlords and manufacturers (as passed by progressive
3029
legislatures or enforced by direct action) simply define liberty
3030
and property rights whereas the rules that benefit workers, tenants
3031
and consumers are simply an interference with liberty. The rules one
3032
likes, in other words, are the foundations of sacred property rights
3033
(and so "liberty," as least for the capitalist and landlord), those
3034
one does not like are meddlesome regulation. This is a very handy
3035
trick and would not be worth mentioning if it was not so commonplace
3036
in right-libertarian theory.
3037
3038
We should leave aside the fantasy that the law under "anarcho"-capitalism
3039
is a politically neutral set of universal rules deduced from particular
3040
cases and free from a particular instrumental or class agenda.
3041
3042
Caplan:
3043
3044
"Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or worker-owned
3045
firms would be penalised or prohibited in an anarcho-capitalist society. It
3046
would be more accurate to state that while individuals would be free to
3047
voluntarily form communitarian organisations, the anarcho-capitalist
3048
simply doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent."
3049
3050
There is good reason for this doubt. Worker co-operatives would not be
3051
widespread or prevalent in an "anarcho"-capitalist society for the same
3052
reason that they are not widespread or prevalent now: namely, that the
3053
socio-economic, legal, and political systems would be structured in such
3054
as way as to automatically discourage their growth (in addition,
3055
capitalist firms and the rich would also have an advantage in that
3056
they would still own and control the wealth they currently have which
3057
are a result of previous "initiations of force". This would give them an
3058
obvious starting advantage on the "free-market" -- an advantage which
3059
would be insurmountable).
3060
3061
As we explain in more detail in section J.5.11, the reason why there are
3062
not more producer co-operatives is partly structural, based on the fact
3063
that co-operatives have a tendency to grow at a slower rate than capitalist
3064
firms. This is a good thing if one's primary concern is, say, protecting
3065
the environment, but fatal if one is trying to survive in a competitive
3066
capitalist environment.
3067
3068
Under capitalism, successful competition for profits is the fundamental
3069
fact of economic survival. This means that banks and private investors
3070
seeking the highest returns on their investments will favour those
3071
companies that grow the fastest. Moreover, in co-operatives returns
3072
to capital are less than in capitalist firms. Under such conditions,
3073
capitalist firms will attract more investment capital, allowing them to
3074
buy more productivity-enhancing technology and thus to sell their products
3075
more cheaply than co-operatives. Even though co-operatives are at least as
3076
efficient (usually more so) than their equivalent capitalist firms, the
3077
effect of market forces (particularly those associated with capital
3078
markets) will select against them. This bias against co-operatives under
3079
capitalism is enough to ensure that, despite their often higher efficiency,
3080
they cannot prosper under capitalism (i.e. capitalism selects the *least
3081
efficient* way of producing). Hence Caplan's comments hide how the effect
3082
of inequalities in wealth and power under capitalism determine which
3083
alternatives are "widespread" in the "free market"
3084
3085
Moreover, co-operatives within capitalism have a tendency to adapt to
3086
the dominant market conditions rather than undermining them. There
3087
will be pressure on the co-operatives to compete more effectively by
3088
adopting the same cost-cutting and profit-enhancing measures as capitalist
3089
firms. Such measures will include the deskilling of workers; squeezing as
3090
much "productivity" as is humanly possible from them; and a system of pay
3091
differentials in which the majority of workers receive low wages while the
3092
bulk of profits are reinvested in technology upgrades and other capital
3093
expansion that keeps pace with capitalist firms. But this means that in
3094
a capitalist environment, there tend to be few practical advantages for
3095
workers in collective ownership of the firms in which they work.
3096
3097
This problem can only be solved by eliminating private property and
3098
the coercive statist mechanisms required to protect it (including
3099
private states masquerading as "protection companies"), because this
3100
is the only way to eliminate competition for profits as the driving
3101
force of economic activity. In a libertarian socialist environment,
3102
federated associations of workers in co-operative enterprises would
3103
co-ordinate production for *use* rather than profit, thus eliminating
3104
the competitive basis of the economy and so also the "grow-or-die"
3105
principle which now puts co-operatives at a fatal economic disadvantage.
3106
(For more on how such an economy would be organised and operated, as
3107
well as answers to objections, see section I.)
3108
3109
And let us not forget what is implied by Caplan's statement that
3110
the "anarcho"-capitalist does not think that co-operative holding
3111
of "property" "would be widespread or prevalent." It means that
3112
the vast majority would be subject to the power, authority and
3113
laws of the property owner and so would not govern themselves.
3114
In other words, it would a system of private statism rather
3115
than anarchy.
3116
3117
Caplan:
3118
3119
"However, in theory an 'anarcho-capitalist' society might be filled with
3120
nothing but communes or worker-owned firms, so long as these associations
3121
were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined voluntarily and capital
3122
was obtained with the consent of the owners) and individuals retained
3123
the right to exit and set up corporations or other profit-making,
3124
individualistic firms."
3125
3126
It's interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalists are willing to allow
3127
workers to set up "voluntary" co-operatives so long as the conditions
3128
are retained which ensure that such co-operatives will have difficulty
3129
surviving (i.e. private property and private states), but they are
3130
unwilling to allow workers to set up co-operatives under conditions that
3131
would ensure their success (i.e. the absence of private property and
3132
private states). This reflects the usual vacuousness of the
3133
right-libertarian concepts of "freedom" and "voluntarism."
3134
3135
In other words, these worker-owned firms would exist in and be subject
3136
to the same capitalist "general libertarian law code" and work in the
3137
same capitalist market as the rest of society. So, not only are these
3138
co-operatives subject to capitalist market forces, they exist and operate
3139
in a society defined by capitalist laws. As discussed in Section F.2,
3140
such disregard for the social context of human action shows up the
3141
"anarcho" capitalist's disregard for meaningful liberty.
3142
3143
All Caplan is arguing here is that as long as people remain within the
3144
(capitalist) "law code," they can do whatever they like. However, what
3145
determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent to
3146
which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them. This is as
3147
true of an "anarcho"-capitalist society as it is of any other. In other
3148
words, if more and more people reject the basic assumptions of capitalism,
3149
the more coercion against anarchistic tendencies will be required. Saying that
3150
people would be free to experiment under "anarcho"-capitalist law (if they
3151
can afford it, of course) does not address the issue of changes in social
3152
awareness (caused, by example, by class struggle) which can make such "laws"
3153
redundant. So, when all is said and done, "anarcho"-capitalism just states
3154
that as long as you accept their rules, you are free to do what you like.
3155
3156
How generous of them!
3157
3158
Thus, while we would be allowed to be collective capitalists or property
3159
owners under "anarcho"-capitalists we would have no choice about living
3160
under laws based on the most rigid and extreme interpretation of property
3161
rights available. In other words, "anarcho"-capitalists recognise (at
3162
least implicitly) that there exists one collective need that needs
3163
collective support -- a law system to define and protects people's rights.
3164
Ultimately, as C.B. Macpherson argues, "Individualism" implies "collectivism"
3165
for the "notion that individualism and 'collectivism' are the opposite
3166
ends of a scale along which states and theories of the state can be
3167
arranged . . . is superficial and misleading. . . . [I]ndividualism . . .
3168
does not exclude but on the contrary demands the supremacy of the state
3169
[or law] over the individual. It is not a question of the more individualism,
3170
the less collectivism; rather, the more through-going the individualism,
3171
the more complete the collectivism. Of this the supreme illustration
3172
is Hobbes's theory." [_The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism_,
3173
p.256] Under "anarcho"-capitalism the individual is subject to the laws
3174
regarding private property, laws decided in advance by a small group of
3175
ideological leaders. Then real individuals are expected to live with the
3176
consequences as best they can, with the law being placed ahead of these
3177
consequences for flesh and blood people. The abstraction of the law
3178
dominates and devours real individuals, who are considered below it
3179
and incapable of changing it (except for the worse). This, from one
3180
angle, shares a lot with theocracy and very little with liberty.
3181
3182
Needless to say, Caplan like most (if not all) "anarcho"-capitalists
3183
assume that the current property owners are entitled to their property.
3184
However, as John Stuart Mill pointed out over 100 years ago, the "social
3185
arrangements" existing today "commenced from a distribution of property
3186
which was the result, not of a just partition, or acquisition by
3187
industry, but of conquest and violence . . . [and] the system still
3188
retains many and large traces of its origin." [_Principles of
3189
Political Economy_, p. 15] Given that (as we point out in section
3190
F.2.3) Murray Rothbard argues that the state cannot be claimed to
3191
own its territory simply because it did not acquire its property in a
3192
"just" manner, this suggests that "anarcho"-capitalism cannot actually
3193
argue against the state. After all, property owners today cannot be
3194
said to have received their property "justly" and *if* they are
3195
entitled to it so is the state to *its* "property"!
3196
3197
But as is so often the case, property owners are exempt from the
3198
analysis the state is subjected to by "anarcho"-capitalists. The
3199
state and property owners may do the same thing (such as ban
3200
freedom of speech and association or regulate individual behaviour)
3201
but only the state is condemned by "anarcho"-capitalism.
3202
3203
Caplan:
3204
3205
"On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all from
3206
the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatised and opened
3207
to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic behaviour should
3208
be done away with."
3209
3210
The "anarcho"-capitalist's professed desire to "do away" with the
3211
"regulation" of economic behaviour is entirely disingenuous. For, by
3212
giving capitalists the ability to protect their exploitative monopolies
3213
of social capital by the use of coercive private states, one is thereby
3214
"regulating" the economy in the strongest possible way, i.e. ensuring
3215
that it will be channelled in certain directions rather than others. For
3216
example, one is guaranteeing that production will be for profit rather
3217
than use; that there will consequently be runaway growth and an endless
3218
devouring of nature based on the principle of "grow or die;" and that
3219
the alienation and deskilling of the workforce will continue. What the
3220
"anarcho"-capitalist really means by "doing away with the regulation
3221
of economic behaviour" is that ordinary people will have even less
3222
opportunity than now to democratically control the rapacious behaviour of
3223
capitalists. Needless to say, the "regulation of personal" behaviour would
3224
*not* be done away with in the workplace, where the authority of the
3225
bosses would still exist and you would have follow their petty rules and
3226
regulations.
3227
3228
Moreover, regardless of "anarcho"-capitalist claims, they do not,
3229
in fact, support civil liberties or oppose "regulation" of personal
3230
behaviour as such. Rather, they *support* property owners suppressing
3231
civil liberties on their property and the regulation of personal
3232
behaviour by employers and landlords. This they argue is a valid
3233
expression of property rights. Indeed, any attempts to allow workers
3234
civil liberties or restrict employers demands on workers by state
3235
or union action is denounced as a violation of "liberty" (i.e. the
3236
power of the property owner). Those subject to the denial of civil
3237
liberties or the regulation of their personal behaviour by landlords
3238
or employees can "love it or leave it." Of course, the same can be
3239
said to any objector to state oppression -- and frequently is. This
3240
is an artificial double standard, which labels a restraint by one
3241
group or person in a completely different way than the same
3242
restraint by others simply because one is called "the government"
3243
and the other is not.
3244
3245
This denial of civil liberties can be seen from these words by
3246
Murray Rothbard:
3247
3248
"[I]n the profoundest sense there are no rights but property
3249
rights . . . Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of
3250
everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is:
3251
Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not
3252
have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has
3253
this right only either on his own property or on the property of
3254
someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to
3255
allow him in the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing
3256
as a separate 'right to free speech'; there is only a man's
3257
property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or
3258
to make voluntary agreements with other property owners."
3259
[Murray Rothbard, _Power and Market_, p. 176]
3260
3261
Of course, Rothbard fails to see that for the property-less such
3262
a regime implies *no* rights whatsoever. It also means the effective
3263
end of free speech and free association as the property owner can
3264
censor those on their property (such as workers or tenants) and
3265
ban their organisations (such as unions). Of course, in his example
3266
Rothbard looks at the "trespasser," *not* the wage worker or the
3267
tenant (two far more common examples in any modern society). Rothbard
3268
is proposing the dictatorship of the property owner and the end
3269
of civil liberties and equal rights (as property is unequally
3270
distributed). He gives this utter denial of liberty an Orwellian
3271
twist by proclaiming the end of civil liberties by property rights
3272
as "a new liberty." Perhaps for the property-owner, but not the
3273
wage worker -- "We who belong to the proletaire class, property
3274
excommunicates us!" [Proudhon, _What is Property?_, p. 137]
3275
3276
In effect, right-Libertarians do not care how many restrictions are
3277
placed on you as long as it is not the government doing it. Of
3278
course it will be claimed that workers and tenants "consent" to
3279
these controls (although they reject the notion that citizens
3280
"consent" to government controls by not leaving their state).
3281
Here the libertarian case is so disingenuous as to be offensive.
3282
There is no symmetry in the situations facing workers and
3283
firms. To the worker, the loss of a job is often far more of
3284
a threat than the loss of one worker is to the firm. The reality
3285
of economic power leads people to contract into situations that,
3286
although they are indeed the "best" arrangements of those
3287
available, are nonetheless miserable. In any real economy -- and,
3288
remember, the right-libertarian economy lacks any social safety
3289
net, making workers' positions more insecure than now -- the
3290
right-libertarian denial of economic power is a delusion.
3291
3292
Unlike anarchist theory, right-libertarian theory provides *no*
3293
rationale to protest private power (or even state power if we
3294
accept the notion that the state owns its territory). Relations
3295
of domination and subjection are valid expressions of liberty
3296
in their system and, perversely, attempts to resist authority
3297
(by strikes, unions, resistance) are deemed "initiations of
3298
force" upon the oppressor! In contrast, anarchist theory
3299
provides a strong rationale for resisting private and public
3300
domination. Such domination violates freedom and any free
3301
association which dominates any within it violates the
3302
basis of that association in self-assumed obligation (see
3303
section A.2.11). Thus Proudhon:
3304
3305
"The social contract should increase the well-being and liberty
3306
of every citizen. -- If any one-sided conditions should
3307
slip in; if one part of the citizens should find themselves,
3308
by the contract, subordinated and exploited by others, it
3309
would no longer be a contract; it would be a fraud, against
3310
which annulment might at any time by invoked justly." [_The
3311
General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 114]
3312
3313
Caplan's claim that right libertarians oppose regulation
3314
of individual behaviour is simply not true. They just
3315
oppose state regulation while supporting private regulation
3316
wholeheartedly. Anarchists, in contrast, reject both public
3317
and private domination.
3318
3319
Caplan:
3320
3321
"Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able
3322
to care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot.
3323
(Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly
3324
increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of
3325
taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.)"
3326
3327
Notice the implication that poverty is now caused by laziness and
3328
irresponsibility rather than by the inevitable workings of an economic
3329
system that *requires* a large "reserve army of the unemployed" as
3330
a condition of profitability. The continuous "boom" economy of
3331
"anarcho"-capitalist fantasies is simply incompatible with the
3332
fundamental principles of capitalism. To re-quote Michael Kalecki
3333
(from section B.4.4), "[l]asting full employment is not at all to
3334
[the] liking [of business leaders]. The workers would 'get out of
3335
hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be anxious 'to teach them
3336
a lesson'" as "'discipline in the factories' and `political stability'
3337
are more appreciated by business leaders than profits. Their class
3338
interest tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
3339
their point of view and that unemployment is an integral part of
3340
the 'normal' capitalist system.". See section C.7 ("What causes
3341
the capitalist business cycle?") for a fuller discussion of this
3342
point.
3343
3344
In addition, the claims that a "deregulated economy" would benefit
3345
the poor do not have much empirical evidence to back them up. If we
3346
look at the last quarter of the twentieth century we discover that
3347
a more deregulated economy has lead to massive increases in inequality
3348
and poverty. If a movement towards a deregulated economy has had the
3349
opposite effect than that predicted by Caplan, why should a totally
3350
deregulated economy have the opposite effect. It is a bit like claiming
3351
that while adding black paint to grey makes it more black, adding the
3352
whole tin will make it white!
3353
3354
The reason for increased inequality and poverty as a result of
3355
increased deregulation is simple. A "free exchange" between two
3356
people will benefit the stronger party. This is obvious as the
3357
economy is marked by power, regardless of "anarcho"-capitalist
3358
claims, and any "free exchange" will reflect difference in power.
3359
Moreover, a series of such exchanges will have an accumulative effect,
3360
with the results of previous exchanges bolstering the position of
3361
the stronger party in the current exchange.
3362
3363
Moreover, the claim that removing taxation will *increase* donations
3364
to charity is someone strange. We doubt that the rich who object to
3365
money being taken from them to pay for welfare will *increase* the
3366
amount of money they give to others if taxation *was* abolished. As
3367
Peter Sabatini points out, "anarcho"-capitalists "constantly rant
3368
and shriek about how the government, or the rabble, hinders their
3369
Lockean right to amass capital." [_Social Anarchism_, no. 23, p.101]
3370
Caplan seems to expect them to turn over a new leaf and give *more*
3371
to that same rabble!
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1