1636 lines
91 KiB
Plaintext
1636 lines
91 KiB
Plaintext
Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
|
|
|
|
This appendix exists for one reason, namely to explain why the the idea
|
|
of "anarcho"-capitalism is a bogus one. While we have covered this topic
|
|
in some detail in section F, we thought that this appendix should be
|
|
created in order to update and bring together our critique of Bryan Caplan's
|
|
"Anarchist Theory FAQ." Caplan's FAQ is the main on-line attempt to give the
|
|
oxymoron of "anarcho"-capitalism some form of justification and so it is
|
|
worthwhile explaining, using his FAQ as the base, why such an attempt fails.
|
|
|
|
As we will prove, Caplan's FAQ fails in its attempt to prove that "anarcho"
|
|
capitalism can be considered as part of the anarchist movement and in fact his
|
|
account involves extensive re-writing of history. This appendix is in two
|
|
parts, a reply to Caplan's most recent FAQ release (version 5.2) and an
|
|
older reply to version 4.1.1 (which was originally section F.10 of the FAQ).
|
|
The introduction to the reply to version 4.1.1 indicates what most anarchists
|
|
think of Caplan's FAQ and its claims of "objectivity" as so we will not
|
|
repeat ourselves here.
|
|
|
|
We have decided to include these replies in an appendix as they are really
|
|
an addition to the main body of the FAQ. Parties interested in why Caplan's
|
|
claims are false can explore this appendix, those who are interested in
|
|
anarchist politics can read the FAQ without having to also read on-line
|
|
arguments between anarchists and capitalists.
|
|
|
|
We should, perhaps, thank Caplan for allowing us an opportunity of explaining
|
|
the ideas of such people as Proudhon and Tucker, allowing us to quote them
|
|
and so bring their ideas to a wider audience and for indicating that
|
|
anarchism, in all its forms, has always opposed capitalism and always will.
|
|
|
|
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
|
|
FAQ" version 5.2
|
|
|
|
1 Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement
|
|
2 Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
|
|
3 Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
|
|
4 Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism
|
|
5 Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
|
|
6 Appendix: Defining Anarchism
|
|
|
|
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
|
|
FAQ" version 4.1.1.
|
|
|
|
1 Is anarchism purely negative?
|
|
2 Anarchism and Equality
|
|
3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
|
|
4 Anarchism and dissidents
|
|
5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
|
|
|
|
***********************
|
|
|
|
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
|
|
FAQ" version 5.2
|
|
|
|
1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
|
|
|
|
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying to
|
|
claim that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the
|
|
so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often the case
|
|
with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.
|
|
|
|
In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?)
|
|
of his FAQ, Caplan writes that:
|
|
|
|
"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely skeptical about
|
|
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
|
|
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
|
|
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
|
|
to maintain this claim."
|
|
|
|
and quotes Carl Landauer's _European Socialism: A History of Ideas
|
|
and Movements_ as evidence:
|
|
|
|
"To be sure, there is a difference between
|
|
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
|
|
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
|
|
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists also
|
|
do not acknowledge any right to society to force the
|
|
individual. They differ from the anarchistic
|
|
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
|
|
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
|
|
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
|
|
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
|
|
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
|
|
property which is maintained through the power of the
|
|
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
|
|
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
|
|
individual independence, without fully answering the
|
|
question of how property could be maintained without
|
|
courts and police."
|
|
|
|
Caplan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that before the
|
|
emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism Landauer found it necessary to
|
|
distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which he considered to
|
|
be within the broad socialist tradition."
|
|
|
|
However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and
|
|
social anarchists agree that there *is* a difference between the two
|
|
schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course, Caplan tries
|
|
to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists
|
|
is somehow "evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly,
|
|
Landauer's book is about _European_ Socialism. Individualist anarchism
|
|
was based within America and so hardly falls within the book's subject
|
|
area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on *two* pages
|
|
(one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not a socialist?
|
|
Of course not. It seems likely, therefore, that Landauer is using a
|
|
common Marxian terminology of defining Marxism as Socialism, while calling
|
|
other parts of the wider socialist movement by their self-proclaimed
|
|
names of anarchism and syndicalism. Hardly surprising that Kropotkin is
|
|
hardly mentioned in a history of "Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).
|
|
|
|
Moreover, Kropotkin and Tucker both distinguished between two types of
|
|
anarchism as well as two types of socialism. Both of them considered
|
|
their ideas and movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. As
|
|
evidence of the anti-socialist nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's
|
|
interpretation of Landauer's words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look
|
|
at the writings of people like Tucker you will see that they called
|
|
themselves socialists and considered themselves part of the wider
|
|
socialist movement.
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that
|
|
he was "the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists." [p. 67]
|
|
Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon into the
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of Landauer is
|
|
particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some
|
|
depth in his work within a chapter headed "The three Anticapitalistic
|
|
Movements." Indeed, he starts his discussion of Proudhon's ideas with
|
|
the words "In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with Peter Joseph
|
|
Proudhon." [p. 59]
|
|
|
|
Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves
|
|
as followers of Proudhon's ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For
|
|
example, Tucker stated that his journal _Liberty_ was "brought into
|
|
existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon" and
|
|
"lives principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich in his
|
|
"Introduction" to _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_ by Charles
|
|
A. Dana]
|
|
|
|
Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socalist and if individualist
|
|
anarchism follows Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.
|
|
|
|
Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To state
|
|
the obvious, Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition to *private*
|
|
property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although Tucker confused
|
|
this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by talking about possession
|
|
as "property."
|
|
|
|
So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.
|
|
|
|
2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In
|
|
section 7 (Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?) he states:
|
|
|
|
"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy
|
|
of government ownership of the means of production' -- it seems
|
|
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
|
|
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of
|
|
the strong restriction or abolition of private property,' then
|
|
the question becomes more complex.
|
|
|
|
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are
|
|
ignorant of socialist ideas! By definition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin
|
|
are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
|
|
were opposed to private property and argued for its abolition and its
|
|
replacement with possession. The actual forms of possession differed
|
|
from between anarchist schools of thought, but the common aim to
|
|
end private property (capitalism) was still there. To quote Dana,
|
|
in a pamphlet called "a really intelligent, forceful, and sympathetic
|
|
account of mutual banking" by Tucker, individualist anarchists desire
|
|
to "destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of property." [Charles
|
|
A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_, p. 46] by mutual credit.
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a
|
|
contradiction in Caplan's account. Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that
|
|
Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
|
|
property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to
|
|
that of possession, as Caplan himself seems aware. In other words,
|
|
even taking his own definitions we find that Proudhon would be considered
|
|
a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, "all accumulated capital is
|
|
collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." [_Selected
|
|
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, Stewart Edwards (ed), p. 44] Thus
|
|
Jeremy Jennings' summary of the anarchist position on private property:
|
|
|
|
"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker],
|
|
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent
|
|
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege." ["Anarchism", _Contemporary
|
|
Political Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds), p. 132]
|
|
|
|
He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with the
|
|
proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced
|
|
no more than the total product of individual labour." [Ibid.]
|
|
|
|
In fact, a definition of socialism which socialists would agree with would
|
|
be one that stated that "the workers shall own the means of production."
|
|
Or, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat." The common agreement
|
|
between all socialists was that capitalism was based upon wage slavery, that
|
|
workers did not have access to the means of production and so had to sell
|
|
themselves to the class that did. To use Tucker's own words:
|
|
|
|
"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon
|
|
the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the
|
|
necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is
|
|
not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any
|
|
one. But the minute you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer
|
|
exchanging with fellow-labourers. . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to
|
|
abolish is usury. . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward" [Ben
|
|
Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 404.]
|
|
|
|
By ending wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The land to the
|
|
cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer." Wage labour,
|
|
and so capitalism, would be no more and "the product [would go] to the
|
|
producer." [from Tucker's essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in _Instead
|
|
of a Book_] In other words, the "abolition of the proletariat."
|
|
|
|
Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted workers to own and control
|
|
the means of production they used. He aimed to do this by reforming
|
|
capitalism away by creating mutual banks and other cooperatives. Here
|
|
is Kropotkin on Proudhon's reformist socialism:
|
|
|
|
"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property is theft',
|
|
he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of 'right of use
|
|
and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited
|
|
sense of possession, he saw the best protection against the encroachments of
|
|
the state. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the
|
|
present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He
|
|
preferred to *attain the same end* by rendering capital incapable of earning
|
|
interest." [our emphasis]
|
|
|
|
In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society
|
|
without capitalists and wage slaves ("the same end") but achieved by
|
|
different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in 1846 he made the
|
|
same point:
|
|
|
|
"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against
|
|
Property in such a way as to create what you German socialists call
|
|
*community* and which for the moment I will only go so far as calling
|
|
*liberty* or *equality*" [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
|
|
p. 151]
|
|
|
|
In other words, he shared the common aim of all socialists (namely to
|
|
abolish capitalism) by disagreed with the means.
|
|
|
|
Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more fertile ground
|
|
for individualist anarchism: during the 19th-century, such figures as Josiah
|
|
Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker gained prominence for their
|
|
vision of an anarchism based upon freedom of contract and private property."
|
|
|
|
However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did *not* support private property
|
|
in the capitalist sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less
|
|
than Tucker and Spooner, supported free agreement between individuals and
|
|
groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more interested in the
|
|
words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings *they* attached
|
|
to them. Hardly convincing.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:
|
|
|
|
"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number
|
|
of different schools." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
|
|
Stewart Edwards (ed), p. 177]
|
|
|
|
3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
|
|
|
|
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best
|
|
to claim that Proudhon was not really a socialist at all. He states that
|
|
"Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as a "left anarchist"]
|
|
although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private property
|
|
would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."
|
|
|
|
"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously
|
|
not - Bakunin claimed that "Proudhon was the master of us all." According
|
|
to George Woodcock Kropotkin was one of Proudhon's "confessed disciples."
|
|
Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-capitalists? Obviously not.
|
|
And, as we noted above, the socialist historian Carl Launder considered
|
|
Proudhon a socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in
|
|
his History of Socialist Thought (and in fact called him one of the "major
|
|
prophets of Socialism."). What about Marx and Engels, surely they would
|
|
be able to say if he was a socialist or not? According to Engels, Proudhon
|
|
was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
|
|
|
|
However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong. Perhaps they just did
|
|
not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated "I am
|
|
socialist" this also applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises,
|
|
did Proudhon support private property in the capitalist sense of the
|
|
word? The answer is no. To quote George Woodcock summary of Proudhon's
|
|
ideas on this subject we find:
|
|
|
|
"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to exploit
|
|
the labour of others, without an effort on his own part, property
|
|
distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer
|
|
on the producer. Towards property regarded as 'possession,' the right
|
|
of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needs to live,
|
|
Proudhon had no hostility; indeed he regarded it as the cornerstone of
|
|
liberty." ["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", _The Raven_ No. 31,
|
|
pp. 208-9]
|
|
|
|
George Crowder makes the same point:
|
|
|
|
"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned. . . including
|
|
such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This is contrasted
|
|
with ownership rights in those goods either produced by the work of the
|
|
owner or necessary for that work, for example his dwelling-house, land
|
|
and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate rights of ownership
|
|
of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls
|
|
*this* 'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same."
|
|
[_Classical Anarchism_, pp. 85-86]
|
|
|
|
Indeed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of capital and
|
|
instrument is what the capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays
|
|
him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which causes the poverty of
|
|
the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
|
|
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation
|
|
of man by man." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, Stewart
|
|
Edwards (ed), p. 43]
|
|
|
|
He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society, the synthesis
|
|
of communism and property" and calls it "liberty." [_The Anarchist Reader_,
|
|
p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that property "by its despotism and
|
|
encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op. Cit.,
|
|
p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital
|
|
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he
|
|
considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to rescue the working
|
|
masses from capitalist exploitation." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
|
|
Proudhon_, p. 44, p. 80]
|
|
|
|
In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source
|
|
of exploitation and oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly constrasts
|
|
his ideas to that of capitalist property and *rejects* it as a means of
|
|
ensuring liberty.
|
|
|
|
Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include
|
|
his defence of the right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine
|
|
antagonism between state power and property rights."
|
|
|
|
However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that
|
|
possession is a source of independence within capitalism and so should be
|
|
supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:
|
|
|
|
"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of
|
|
the fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only
|
|
the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy
|
|
(that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed
|
|
artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight a
|
|
contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[_Anarchism: Arguments
|
|
for and against_]
|
|
|
|
Malatesta makes the same point:
|
|
|
|
"Our opponents. . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
|
|
private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee
|
|
of liberty.
|
|
|
|
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is
|
|
slavery?
|
|
|
|
"But then why do we oppose them?
|
|
|
|
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
|
|
property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class of
|
|
the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the
|
|
property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that
|
|
workers are subjected to a kind of slavery." [_The Anarchist Revolution_,
|
|
p. 113]
|
|
|
|
As does Kropotkin:
|
|
|
|
"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour
|
|
is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really produces most
|
|
when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his
|
|
occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
|
|
when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who
|
|
work like him, but bringing in little to idlers." [_The Conquest
|
|
of Bread_, p. 145]
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really"
|
|
proto-"anarcho"-capitalists as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering
|
|
if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries to rewrite history
|
|
to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
|
|
socialism and whatever are actually like.
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" he does not mention
|
|
is his belief that "property" was required not only to defend people against
|
|
the state, but also capitalism. He saw society dividing into "two classes,
|
|
one of employed workers, the other of property-owners, capitalists,
|
|
entrepreneurs." He thus recognised that capitalism was just as oppressive
|
|
as the state and that it assured "the victory of the strong over the weak, of
|
|
those who property over those who own nothing." [_On the Political Capacity
|
|
of the Working Classes_, p. 141]
|
|
|
|
Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were the "exploiters
|
|
of the bodies and souls of their wage earners" and an outrage on "human
|
|
dignity and personality." Instead of wage labour he thought that the
|
|
"industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and
|
|
indivisible property of all the participant workers." In other
|
|
words, self-management and workers control. In this way there would
|
|
be "no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
|
|
capital" and the "social republic" established. Hence his support for
|
|
cooperatives:
|
|
|
|
"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests,
|
|
but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments,
|
|
which the first [French] revolution left undisturbed. Afterwards, when
|
|
they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of workers should
|
|
take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
|
|
inheritance." [cited in _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1,
|
|
and _Anarchism_, George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
|
|
|
|
In other words, a *socialist* society as workers would no longer be
|
|
separated from the means of production and they would control their
|
|
own work (the "abolition of the proletariat," to use Proudhon's
|
|
expression). This would mean recognising that "the right to products
|
|
is exclusive - jus in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem"
|
|
[cited by Woodcock, _Anarchism, p. 96] which would lead to
|
|
self-management:
|
|
|
|
"In democratizing us, revolution has launched us on the path of
|
|
industrial democracy." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
|
|
Stewart Edwards (ed), p. 63]
|
|
|
|
As Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal society of the
|
|
ideal society it is this predominance of the small proprietor, the peasant
|
|
or artisan, that immediately impresses one" with "the creation of
|
|
cooperative associations for the running of factories and railways."
|
|
["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]
|
|
|
|
To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite
|
|
anarchist and socialist history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead
|
|
for both wings of the anarchist movement and _What is Property?_ "embraces
|
|
the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support for revolution]
|
|
all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or implied: the
|
|
conception of a free society united by association, of workers controlling
|
|
the means of production. . . [this book] remains the foundation on which
|
|
the whole edifice of nineteenth century anarchist theory was to be
|
|
constructed." [OP. Cit., p. 210]
|
|
|
|
Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely
|
|
developed and pushed to these, its final consequences."
|
|
|
|
4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.
|
|
|
|
That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from _Instead of
|
|
A Book_ which means that either Caplan has not looked at it (with obvious
|
|
implications for the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore
|
|
these facts in favour of his own ideologically tainted version of
|
|
history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy of his FAQ).
|
|
|
|
Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as
|
|
follows In section 14 (What are the major debates between anarchists?
|
|
What are the recurring arguments?):
|
|
|
|
"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save
|
|
his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
|
|
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
|
|
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
|
|
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
|
|
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
|
|
all the possession by the labourer of his products."
|
|
|
|
You will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property "the
|
|
possession of the labourer of his products." However, Proudhon did include
|
|
in his definition of property the possession of the capital to steal profits
|
|
from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker and
|
|
Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property ("the power of usury"). From
|
|
Caplan's own evidence he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!
|
|
|
|
But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":
|
|
|
|
"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses,
|
|
and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer."
|
|
[cited in _Men against the State_ by James J. Martin, p. 208]
|
|
|
|
Which can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports
|
|
capitalism!
|
|
|
|
And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps
|
|
Caplan should actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private
|
|
property before writing such nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's
|
|
ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it is interesting
|
|
that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating
|
|
that he does not know what socialism or anarchism actually is.
|
|
|
|
So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon were
|
|
really capitalists by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.
|
|
|
|
He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist
|
|
is wrong because "the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For
|
|
example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been
|
|
inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many
|
|
19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
|
|
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property
|
|
(merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate,
|
|
without opposing private property as such)."
|
|
|
|
The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however,
|
|
are not "incorrect." Proudhon was reknown as the leading French Socialist
|
|
theorist when he was alive. His ideas were widely known in the socialist
|
|
movement and in many ways his economic theories were similar to the ideas of
|
|
such well known early socialists as Robert Owen and William Thompson. As
|
|
Kropotkin notes:
|
|
|
|
"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in
|
|
William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and
|
|
in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social
|
|
System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839)."
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?
|
|
|
|
Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated
|
|
that there were "two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism
|
|
and Anarchism." And stated in very clear terms that:
|
|
|
|
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:
|
|
the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [_Instead of
|
|
a Book_, p. 363]
|
|
|
|
And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. wage slavery) and wished
|
|
that "there should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State Socialism
|
|
and Anarchism" in _Instead of a Book_]
|
|
|
|
Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject
|
|
of capitalism and private property. In section 13. (What moral justifications
|
|
have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:
|
|
|
|
"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
|
|
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
|
|
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
|
|
means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
|
|
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
|
|
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labour income
|
|
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
|
|
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
|
|
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
|
|
economic effect thereof would not actually occur."
|
|
|
|
What did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly? Private
|
|
property, particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism undertakes to
|
|
protect no titles except such as are based upon actual occupancy and
|
|
use" and that anarchism "means the abolition of landlordism and the
|
|
annihilation of rent." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 61, p. 300] In other
|
|
words, Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while
|
|
socialism (libertarian of course) would be the product of anarchy.
|
|
|
|
So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism
|
|
is simply anti-government fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have
|
|
distinct economic as well as political ideas and these cannot be parted
|
|
without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's
|
|
attempt to protray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government
|
|
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner
|
|
also fails. If Proudhon was a socialist, then his self-proclaimed followers
|
|
will also be socialists - and, unsuprisingly, Tucker called himself a
|
|
socialist and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist
|
|
movement.
|
|
|
|
5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
|
|
|
|
Caplan tries to build upon the nonexistent foundation of Tucker's and
|
|
Proudhon's "capitalism" by stating that:
|
|
|
|
"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
|
|
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of 'anarchist.' In his
|
|
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
|
|
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were
|
|
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
|
|
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
|
|
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
|
|
Liberty.' Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
|
|
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
|
|
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
|
|
including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
|
|
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
|
|
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
|
|
|
|
There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to
|
|
prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because
|
|
while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement,
|
|
Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In
|
|
_State Socialism and Anarchism_ he stated that anarchism was "an ideal
|
|
utterly inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call
|
|
themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a regime of
|
|
Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves."
|
|
["State Socialism and Anarchism", _Instead of a Book_]
|
|
|
|
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon
|
|
or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters
|
|
of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a *political* movement
|
|
(as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist
|
|
and against capitalist wage slavery and oppression. In other words,
|
|
anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated with specific
|
|
political *and* economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin defined
|
|
their anarchism as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To quote
|
|
Tucker on the subject:
|
|
|
|
"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition
|
|
of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation
|
|
of man by man." [cited in _Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
|
|
American Individualism_ by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
|
|
|
|
Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always
|
|
combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to exploitation.
|
|
Anarchism and capitalism are two *different* political ideas with specific
|
|
(and opposed) meanings - to deny these meanings is to deny history and the
|
|
development of ideas.
|
|
|
|
As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but
|
|
not a communist) it is hardly surprising that he mentions him. Again,
|
|
Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a "right-wing"
|
|
anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending
|
|
individualist anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of
|
|
capitalism! That in itself should be enough to indicate Caplan's attempt to
|
|
use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-option of Proudhon,
|
|
Tucker and Spooner fails.
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins.
|
|
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:
|
|
|
|
"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
|
|
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
|
|
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
|
|
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
|
|
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
|
|
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
|
|
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
|
|
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption,
|
|
but overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
|
|
common with anarcho-capitalists than with left-anarchists.)"
|
|
|
|
Firstly, as he states, Tucker and Spooner have been "adopted" by the
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist school. Being dead they have little chance to
|
|
protest such an adoption, but it is clear that they considered themselves
|
|
as socialists, against capitalism. Secondly, Caplan lets the cat
|
|
out the bag by noting that this "adoption" involved a few warnings -
|
|
more specifically, the attempt to rubbish and ignore the underlying
|
|
socio-economic ideas of Tucker and Spooner.
|
|
|
|
Individualist anarchists are, indeed, more similar to classical liberals
|
|
than social anarchists. Similarly, social anarchists are more similar to
|
|
Marxists than Individualist anarchists. But neither statement means that
|
|
Individualist anarchists are capitalists, or social anarchists are state
|
|
socialists. It just means some of their ideas overlap (and we may point
|
|
out that Individualist anarchist ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and
|
|
social anarchist ones with liberal ones).
|
|
|
|
So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism was
|
|
a combination of the ideas of Proudhon and Spencer, what the "anarcho"
|
|
capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the Proudhon (i.e. socialist)
|
|
aspect of their theories. However, that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was
|
|
not an anarchist, but a right-wing Libertarian (a "champion of the
|
|
capitalistic class" as Tucker put it).
|
|
|
|
In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas which have
|
|
little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in his overview of
|
|
anarchist theory and history, agrees:
|
|
|
|
"It is hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] - with
|
|
roots deep in classical liberalism - are described as anarchist only on the
|
|
basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is" [_Contemporary Political
|
|
Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds), p. 142]
|
|
|
|
and Barbara Goodwin agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true place
|
|
is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism. [_Using
|
|
Political Ideas, p. 148]
|
|
|
|
Caplan's attempt in his FAQ is an example to ignore individualist anarchist
|
|
theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand their ideas on
|
|
property and instead Caplan just concentrates on the fact they use the word.
|
|
Caplan also ignores:
|
|
|
|
- their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider socialist
|
|
movement.
|
|
|
|
- their opposition to capitalist property, exploitation and usury.
|
|
|
|
- their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
|
|
secure the full product of their labour.
|
|
|
|
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
|
|
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also agreed
|
|
with) and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory investigation
|
|
indicates the non-capitalist nature of their ideas on property and
|
|
the socialistic nature of their theories.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Caplan should ponder these words of Kropotkin supporters of the
|
|
"individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians . . . soon realize
|
|
that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by
|
|
individual efforts, and . . . abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and are
|
|
driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist."
|
|
|
|
Caplan seems to confuse the end of the ending place of ex-anarchists
|
|
with their starting point. As can be seen from his attempt to co-opt
|
|
Proudhon, Spooner and Tucker he has to ignore their ideas and rewrite
|
|
history.
|
|
|
|
6 - Appendix: Defining Anarchism
|
|
|
|
In his Appendix "Defining Anarchism" we find that Caplan attempts
|
|
to defend his dictionary definition of anarchism. He does this
|
|
by attempting to refute two arguments, The Philological Argument
|
|
and the Historical Argument.
|
|
|
|
Taking each in turn we find:
|
|
|
|
Caplan's definition of "The Philological Argument" is as follows:
|
|
|
|
"Several critics have noted the origin of the term "anarchy," which
|
|
derives from the Greek "arkhos," meaning "ruler," and the prefix "an-,"
|
|
meaning "without." It is therefore suggested that in my definition the
|
|
word "government" should be replaced with the word "domination" or
|
|
"rulership"; thus re-written, it would then read: "The theory or
|
|
doctrine that all forms of rulership are unnecessary, oppressive, and
|
|
undesirable and should be abolished."
|
|
|
|
Caplan replies by stating that:
|
|
|
|
"This is all good and well, so long as we realize that various groups of
|
|
anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance
|
|
of 'rulership.'"
|
|
|
|
However, in order to refute this argument by this method, he has to
|
|
ignore his own methodology. A dictionary definition of ruler is
|
|
"a person who rules by authority." and "rule" is defined as "to have
|
|
authoritative control over people" or "to keep (a person or feeling etc.)
|
|
under control, to dominate" [_The Oxford Study Dictionary_]
|
|
|
|
Hierarchy by its very nature is a form of rulership (hier-*archy*) and is
|
|
so opposed to by anarchists. Capitalism is based upon wage labour, in which a
|
|
worker follows the rules of their boss. This is obviously a form of hierarchy,
|
|
of domination. Almost all people (excluding die-hard supporters of capitalism) would agree that being told what to do, when to do and how to do by a boss
|
|
is a form of rulership.
|
|
|
|
Thus Caplan is ignoring the meaning of words to state that "on its own terms
|
|
this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists" because they define
|
|
rulership to exclude most forms of archy! Hardly convincing.
|
|
|
|
Thus Caplan's critique of the "Philological Argument" fails because he
|
|
tries to deny that the social relationship between worker and capitalist
|
|
is based upon *archy,* when it obviously is.
|
|
|
|
Moving on, Caplan defines the Historical Argument as:
|
|
|
|
"A second popular argument states that historically, the term 'anarchism'
|
|
has been clearly linked with anarcho-socialists, anarcho-communists,
|
|
anarcho-syndicalists, and other enemies of the capitalist system. Hence, the
|
|
term 'anarcho-capitalism' is a strange oxymoron which only demonstrates
|
|
ignorance of the anarchist tradition."
|
|
|
|
He argues that "even if we were to accept the premise of this argument --
|
|
to wit, that the meaning of a word is somehow determined by its historical
|
|
usage -- the conclusion would not follow because the minor premise is wrong.
|
|
It is simply not true that from its earliest history, all anarchists were
|
|
opponents of private property, free markets, and so on."
|
|
|
|
Firstly, anarchism is not just a word, but a political idea and movement
|
|
and so the word used in a political context is associated with a given
|
|
body of ideas. Secondly, it is true that anarchists like Tucker were
|
|
not against the free market, but they did not consider capitalism to
|
|
be defined by the free market but by wage labour (as do all socialists).
|
|
In addition, as we have proved elsewhere, Tucker was opposed to capitalist
|
|
private property just as much as Kropotkin was but in a different way. Thus
|
|
Caplan's attempt to judge the historical argument on its own merits fails
|
|
because he has to rewrite history to do so.
|
|
|
|
Caplan is right to state that the meaning of words change over time, but
|
|
this does not mean we should run to use dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
|
|
rarely express political ideas well - for example, most dictionaries define
|
|
the word "anarchy" as "chaos" and "disorder." Does that mean anarchists aim
|
|
to create chaos? Of course not. Therefore, Caplan's attempt to use dictionary
|
|
definitions is selective and ultimately useless - anarchism as a political
|
|
movement cannot be expressed by dictionary definitions and any attempt
|
|
to do so means to ignore history.
|
|
|
|
The problems in using dictionary definitions to describe political ideas
|
|
can best be seen from the definition of the word "Socialism." According
|
|
to the _Oxford Study Dictionary_ Socialism is "a political and economic
|
|
theory advocating that land, resources, and the chief industries should
|
|
be owned and managed by the State."
|
|
|
|
The _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_, conversely, defines
|
|
socialism as:
|
|
|
|
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
|
|
government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
|
|
|
|
Clearly the latter source has a more accurate definition of socialism than
|
|
the former, by allowing for "collective" versus solely "State" control of productive means.
|
|
|
|
So, one's view depends on *which* dictionary one uses, and *when* it was
|
|
written which is why they are not the best means of resolving disputes - if resolution of disputes is, in fact, your goal.
|
|
|
|
Both Kropotkin and Tucker stated that they were socialists and that
|
|
anarchism was socialistic. If we take this modern meaning of the word as the valid one then Tucker and Kropotkin are *not* socialists and no form of
|
|
anarchism is socialist. This is obviously nonsense and it shows the
|
|
limitations of using dictionary definitions on political theories.
|
|
|
|
Therefore Caplan's attempt to justify using the dictionary definition
|
|
fails. Firstly, because the definitions used would depend which dictionary
|
|
you use. Secondly, dictionary definitions cannot capture the ins and
|
|
outs of a *political* theory or its ideas on wider subjects.
|
|
|
|
Ironically enough, Caplan is repeating an attempt made by State Socialists
|
|
to deny Individualist Anarchism its socialist title (see "Socialism and
|
|
the Lexicographers" in _Instead of a Book_). In reply to this attempt,
|
|
Tucker noted that:
|
|
|
|
"The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their
|
|
definitions. A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous.
|
|
But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance
|
|
by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits."
|
|
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 369]
|
|
|
|
And Tucker provided many quotes from *other* dictionaries to refute the
|
|
attempt by the State Socialists to define Individualist Anarchism away.
|
|
He also notes that any person trying such a method will "find that the
|
|
Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one half of their title
|
|
by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 365]
|
|
|
|
Caplan should take note. His technique been tried before and it failed then
|
|
and it will fail again for the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
As far as his case against the Historical Argument goes, this is equally as
|
|
flawed. Caplan states that:
|
|
|
|
"Before the Protestant Reformation, the word "Christian," had referred almost
|
|
entirely to Catholics (as well as adherents of the Orthodox Church) for
|
|
about one thousand years. Does this reveal any linguistic confusion on the
|
|
part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and so on, when they called themselves
|
|
'Christians'? Of course not. It merely reveals that a word's historical usage
|
|
does not determine its meaning."
|
|
|
|
However, as analogies do this is pretty pathetic. Both the Protestants and
|
|
Catholics followed the teachings of Christ but had different interpretations
|
|
of it. As such they could both be considered Christians - followers of the
|
|
Bible. In the case of anarchism, there are two main groupings - individualist
|
|
and social. Both Tucker and Bakunin claimed to follow, apply and develop Proudhon's ideas (and share his opposition to both state and capitalism) and
|
|
so are part of the anarchist tradition.
|
|
|
|
The anarchist movement was based upon applying the core ideas of Proudhon
|
|
(his anti-statism and socialism) and developing them in the same spirit, and
|
|
these ideas find their roots in *socialist* history and theory. For example,
|
|
William Godwin was claimed as an anarchist after his death by the movement
|
|
because of his opposition to both state and private property, something
|
|
all anarchists oppose. Similarly, Max Stirner's opposition to both state
|
|
and capitalist property places him within the anarchist tradition.
|
|
|
|
Given that we find fascists and nazis calling themselves "republicans,"
|
|
"democrats," even "liberals" it is worthwhile remembering that the names
|
|
of political theories are defined not by who use them, but by the ideas
|
|
associated with the name. In other words, a fascist cannot call themselves
|
|
a "liberal" any more than a capitalist can call themselves an "anarchist."
|
|
To state, as Caplan does, that the historical usage of a word does not
|
|
determine its meaning results in utter confusion and the end of meaningful
|
|
political debate. If the historical usage of a name is meaningless will we
|
|
soon see fascists as well as capitalists calling themselves anarchists? In
|
|
other words, the label "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer, pure and simple,
|
|
as all anarchists have opposed capitalism as an authoritarian system based
|
|
upon wage slavery.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a better analogy for the conflict between anarchism and "anarcho"
|
|
capitalism would be between Satanists and Christians. Would we consider
|
|
as Christian a Satanist grouping claiming to be Christian? A grouping
|
|
that rejects everything that Christians believe but who like the name?
|
|
Of course not. Neither would we consider as a right-libertarian someone who
|
|
is against the free market or someone as a marxist who supports capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Both social and individualist anarchists defined their ideas in terms of
|
|
both political (abolition of the state) *and* economic (abolition
|
|
of wage slavery) ideas. Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government
|
|
form of socialism" while Tucker insisted that anarchism was "the abolition
|
|
of the State and the abolition of usury."
|
|
|
|
In other words, a political movement's economic ideas are just as much a
|
|
part of its theories as their political ideas. Any attempt to consider
|
|
one in isolation from the other kills what defines the theory and makes
|
|
it unique. And, ultimately, any such attempt, is a lie:
|
|
|
|
"[classical liberalism] is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism,
|
|
and therefore simply a lie, for freedom is impossible without equality,
|
|
and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism."
|
|
[Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 46]
|
|
|
|
Therefore Caplan's case against the Historial Argument also fails -
|
|
"anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer because anarchism has always, in all
|
|
its forms, opposed capitalism. Denying and re-writing history is hardly
|
|
a means of refuting the historical argument.
|
|
|
|
Caplan ends by stating:
|
|
|
|
"Let us designate anarchism (1) anarchism as you define it. Let us desiginate
|
|
anarchism (2) anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary
|
|
define it. This is a FAQ about anarchism (2)."
|
|
|
|
Note that here we see again how the dictionary is a very poor foundation
|
|
upon to base an argument. Again using _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
|
|
Dictionary_, we find under "anarchist" - "one who rebels against any authority,
|
|
established order, or ruling power." This definition is very close to that
|
|
which "traditional" anarchists have - which is the basis for our own opposition
|
|
to the notion that anarchism is merely rebellion against *State*
|
|
authority.
|
|
|
|
Clearly this definition is at odds with Caplan's own view; is Webster's then
|
|
wrong, and Caplan's view right? Which view is backed by the theory and
|
|
history of the movement?
|
|
|
|
What Caplan fails to even comprehend is that his choices are false.
|
|
Anarchism can be designated in two ways:
|
|
|
|
(1). Anarchism as you define it
|
|
(2). Anarchism as the anarchist movement defines it and finds expression
|
|
in the theories developed by that movement.
|
|
|
|
Caplan chooses anarchism (1) and so denies the whole history of the
|
|
anarchist movement. Anarchism is not a word, its a political theory
|
|
with a long history which dictionaries cannot cover. Therefore any attempt
|
|
to define anarchism by such means is deeply flawed and ultimately
|
|
fails.
|
|
|
|
Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of its
|
|
history is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
***************************
|
|
|
|
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
|
|
FAQ" version 4.1.1.
|
|
|
|
There have been a few "anarchist" FAQ's produced before. Bryan Caplan's
|
|
anarchism FAQ is one of the more recent. While appearing to be a
|
|
"neutral" statement of anarchist ideas, it is actually in large part an
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ. This can be seen by the fact that anarchist ideas
|
|
(which he calls "left-anarchist") are given less than half the available
|
|
space while "anarcho"-capitalist dogma makes up the majority of it.
|
|
Considering that anarchism has been around far longer than
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalism and is the bigger and better established movement,
|
|
this is surprising. Even his use of the term "left anarchist" is
|
|
strange as it is never used by anarchists and ignores the fact that
|
|
Individualist Anarchists like Tucker called themselves "socialists" and
|
|
considered themselves part of the wider socialist movement. For
|
|
anarchists, the expression "left anarchist" is meaningless as all
|
|
anarchists are anti-capitalist.
|
|
|
|
Caplan also frames the debate only around issues which he is comfortable with.
|
|
For example, when discussing "left anarchist" ideas he states that "A key
|
|
value in this line of anarchist thought is egalitarianism, the view that
|
|
inequalities, especially of wealth and power, are undesirable, immoral,
|
|
and socially contingent." This, however, is *not* why anarchists
|
|
are egalitarians. Anarchists oppose inequalities because they undermine
|
|
and restrict individual and social freedom.
|
|
|
|
Taking another example, under the question, "How would left-anarchy
|
|
work?", Caplan fails to spell out some of the really obvious forms of
|
|
anarchist thought. For example, the works of Bookchin, Kropotkin, Bakunin
|
|
and Proudhon are not discussed in any detail. His vague and confusing
|
|
prose would seem to reflect the amount of thought that he has put into it.
|
|
Being an "anarcho" capitalist, Caplan concentrates on the economic aspect
|
|
of anarchism and ignores its communal side. The economic aspect of anarchism
|
|
he discusses is anarcho-syndicalism and tries to constrast the confederated
|
|
economic system explained by one anarcho-syndicalist with Bakunin's opposition
|
|
to Marxism. Unfortunately for Caplan, Bakunin is the source of
|
|
anarcho-syndicalism's ideas on a confederation of self-managed workplaces
|
|
running the economy. Therefore, to state that "many" anarchists "have been
|
|
very skeptical of setting up any overall political structure, even a democratic
|
|
one, and focused instead on direct worker control at the factory level"
|
|
is simply *false*. The idea of direct local control within a confederated
|
|
whole is a common thread through anarchist theory and activity, as any
|
|
anarchist could tell you.
|
|
|
|
Lastly, we must note that after Caplan posted his FAQ to the "anarchy-list,"
|
|
many of the anarchists on that list presented numerous critiques of the
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist theories and of the ideas (falsely) attributed to
|
|
social anarchists in the FAQ, which he chose to ignore.
|
|
|
|
Therefore, as can be seen from these few examples, Caplan's "FAQ" is blatantly
|
|
biased towards "anarcho-capitalism" and based on the mischaracterizations
|
|
and the disemphasis on some of the most important issues between
|
|
"anarcho-capitalists" and anarchists. It is clear that his viewpoint is
|
|
anything but impartial.
|
|
|
|
This section will highlight some of the many errors and distortions in
|
|
that FAQ. Numbers in square brackets refer to the corresponding sections
|
|
Caplan's FAQ.
|
|
|
|
F.10.1 Is anarchism purely negative?
|
|
|
|
[1]. Caplan, consulting his _American Heritage Dictionary_, claims:
|
|
"Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is
|
|
bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be
|
|
difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold."
|
|
|
|
The last sentence is ridiculous. It is not at all difficult to
|
|
find a more fundamental "defining tenet" of anarchism. We can do so
|
|
merely by analyzing the term "an-archy," which is composed of the Greek
|
|
words _an_, meaning "no" or "without," and _arche_, meaning literally "a
|
|
ruler," but more generally referring to the *principle* of rulership, i.e.
|
|
hierarchical authority. Hence an anarchist is someone who advocates
|
|
abolishing the principle of hierarchical authority -- not just in
|
|
government but in all institutions and social relations.
|
|
|
|
Anarchists oppose the principle of hierarchical authority because it
|
|
is the basis of domination, which is not only degrading in itself but
|
|
generally leads to exploitation and all the social evils which follow from
|
|
exploitation, from poverty, hunger and homelessness to class struggle and
|
|
armed conflict.
|
|
|
|
Because anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, domination, and
|
|
exploitation, they naturally seek to eliminate all hierarchies, as the
|
|
very purpose of hierarchy is to facilitate the domination and (usually)
|
|
exploitation of subordinates.
|
|
|
|
The reason anarchists oppose government, then, is because government is
|
|
*one manifestation* of the evils of hierarchical authority, domination,
|
|
and exploitation. But the capitalist workplace is another. In fact, the
|
|
capitalist workplace is where most people have their most frequent and
|
|
unpleasant encounters with these evils. Hence workers' control -- the
|
|
elimination of the hierarchical workplace through democratic
|
|
self-management -- has been central to the agenda of classical and
|
|
contemporary anarchism from the 19th century to the present. Indeed,
|
|
anarchism was born out of the struggle of workers against capitalist
|
|
exploitation.
|
|
|
|
To accept Caplan's definition of anarchism, however, would mean that
|
|
anarchists' historical struggle for workers' self-management has never
|
|
been a "genuine" anarchist activity. This is clearly a reductio ad
|
|
absurdum of that definition.
|
|
|
|
Caplan has confused a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
|
|
Opposition to government is a necessary condition of anarchism, but not a
|
|
sufficient one. To put it differently, all anarchists oppose government,
|
|
but opposition to government does not automatically make one an
|
|
anarchist. To be an anarchist one must oppose government for anarchist
|
|
reasons.
|
|
|
|
Self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose government for anarchist
|
|
reasons. That is, they oppose it not because it is a manifestation of
|
|
hierarchical authority, but because government authority often *conflicts*
|
|
with capitalists' authority over the enterprises they control. By
|
|
getting rid of government with its minimum wage laws, health and safety
|
|
requirements, union rights laws, environmental standards, child labour
|
|
laws, and other inconveniences, capitalists would have even more power to
|
|
exploit workers than they already do. These consequences of
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalism are diametrically opposed to the historically
|
|
central objective of the anarchist movement, which is to eliminate
|
|
capitalist exploitation.
|
|
|
|
We must conclude, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists at
|
|
all. In reality they are capitalists *posing* as anarchists in order to
|
|
attract support for their laissez-faire economic project from those who
|
|
are angry at government. This scam is only possible on the basis of the
|
|
misunderstanding perpetrated by Caplan: that anarchism means nothing
|
|
more than opposition to government.
|
|
|
|
Better definitions of anarchism can be found in other reference works.
|
|
For example, in _Grollier's Online Encyclopedia_ we read: "Anarchism
|
|
rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well
|
|
as political." According to this more historically and etymologically
|
|
accurate definition, "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since
|
|
it does not reject hierarchical authority in the economic sphere (which has
|
|
been the area of prime concern to anarchists since day one). Hence
|
|
it is *bogus* anarchism.
|
|
|
|
F.10.2 Anarchism and Equality
|
|
|
|
[5.] On the question "What major subdivisions may be made among
|
|
anarchists?" Caplan writes: "Unlike the left-anarchists,
|
|
anarcho-capitalists generally place little or no value on equality,
|
|
believing that inequalities along all dimensions -- including income
|
|
and wealth -- are not only perfectly legitimate so long as they 'come
|
|
about in the right way,' but are the natural consequence of human
|
|
freedom."
|
|
|
|
This statement is not inaccurate as a characterization of
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist ideas, but its implications need to be made clear.
|
|
"Anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value on equality --
|
|
particularly economic equality -- because they know that under their
|
|
system, where capitalists would be completely free to exploit workers to
|
|
the hilt, wealth and income inequalities would become even greater than
|
|
they are now. Thus their references to "human freedom" as the way in
|
|
which such inequalities would allegedly come about means "freedom of
|
|
capitalists to exploit workers;" it does not mean "freedom of workers
|
|
_from_ capitalist exploitation."
|
|
|
|
But "freedom to exploit workers" has historically been the objective only
|
|
of capitalists, not anarchists. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalism again
|
|
shows itself to be nothing more than capitalism attempting to pass itself
|
|
off as part of the anarchist movement -- a movement that has been
|
|
dedicated since its inception to the destruction of capitalism! One would
|
|
have to look hard to find a more audacious fraud.
|
|
|
|
F.10.3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
|
|
|
|
[7.] In this section ("Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?") Caplan
|
|
writes: "Outside of the Anglo-American political culture, there has been
|
|
a long and close historical relationship between the more orthodox
|
|
socialists who advocate a socialist government, and the anarchist
|
|
socialists who desire some sort of decentralized, voluntary socialism.
|
|
The two groups both want to severely limit or abolish private property..."
|
|
|
|
The statement that anarchists want to severely limit or abolish private
|
|
property is misleading if it is not further explained. For the way it
|
|
stands, it sounds like anarchism is just another form of coercive "state"
|
|
(i.e. a political entity that forcibly prevents people from owning private
|
|
property), whereas this is far from the case.
|
|
|
|
It is not that anarchists want to pass laws making private property
|
|
illegal. Rather they want to restructure society in such a way that the
|
|
means of production are freely available for workers to use. This does
|
|
not mean "anarchist police" standing around with guns to prohibit people
|
|
from owning private property. Rather, it means dismantling the coercive
|
|
state agencies that make private property possible, i.e., the departments
|
|
of real police who now stand around with guns protecting private property.
|
|
|
|
Once that occurs, anarchists maintain that capitalism would be impossible,
|
|
since capitalism is essentially a monopoly of the means of production,
|
|
which can only be maintained by organized coercion. For suppose that in
|
|
an anarchist society someone (call him Bob) somehow acquires certain
|
|
machinery needed to produce widgets (a doubtful supposition if
|
|
widget-making machines are very expensive, as there will be little wealth
|
|
disparity in an anarchist society). And suppose Bob offers to let workers
|
|
with widget-making skills use his machines if they will pay him "rent,"
|
|
i.e. allow him to appropriate a certain amount of the value embodied in
|
|
the widgets they produce. The workers will simply refuse, choosing
|
|
instead to join a widget-making collective where they have free access to
|
|
widget-making machinery, thus preventing Bob from living parasitically on
|
|
their labour.
|
|
|
|
In this scenario, private property was "abolished," but not through
|
|
coercion. Indeed, it was precisely the abolition of organized coercion
|
|
that allowed private property to be abolished.
|
|
|
|
In addition, for Caplan to claim that anarchism is not the same thing as
|
|
socialism, he has to ignore anarchist history. For example, the Individualist
|
|
anarchists called themselves "socialists." as did social anarchists. Therefore,
|
|
*within* the "Anglo-American political culture," *all* types of anarchists
|
|
considered themselves part of the socialist movement. This can be seen not
|
|
only from Kropotkin's or Bakunin's work, but also in Tucker's (see
|
|
_Instead of a Book_). So to claim that the "Anglo-American" anarchists did
|
|
not have "a long and close historical relationship" with the wider socialist
|
|
movement is simply *false.*
|
|
|
|
F.10.4 Anarchism and dissidents
|
|
|
|
[9.] On the question "How would left-anarchy work?" Caplan writes: "Some
|
|
other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are quite unclear.
|
|
Whether dissidents who despised all forms of communal living would be
|
|
permitted to set up their own inegalitarian separatist societies is rarely
|
|
touched upon. Occasionally left-anarchists have insisted that small
|
|
farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivized, but the limits
|
|
of the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian way of life are rarely
|
|
specified."
|
|
|
|
This is a straw man. "Left" (i.e. real) anarchist theory clearly implies
|
|
the answer to these questions.
|
|
|
|
Regarding "dissidents" who wanted to set up their own "inegalitarian
|
|
separatist societies," if the term "inegalitarian" implies economic
|
|
inequalities due to private property, the answer is that private property
|
|
requires some kind of state, if not a central state then private security
|
|
forces ("private-state capitalism"), as advocated by "anarcho"-capitalists,
|
|
in order to protect private property. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists
|
|
are asking if an anarchist society will allow the existence of states!
|
|
|
|
Thus suppose that in a hypothetical libertarian socialist society, Bob
|
|
tries to set up private security forces to protect certain means of
|
|
production, e.g. farmland. By the hypothesis, if Bob merely wanted to
|
|
work the land himself, there would be no reason for him go to the trouble
|
|
of creating a private state to guard it, because use-rights guarantee that
|
|
he has free access to the productive assets he needs to make a living.
|
|
Thus, the only plausible reason Bob could have for claiming and guarding
|
|
more farmland than he could use himself would be a desire to create a
|
|
monopoly of land in order to exact tribute from others for the privilege
|
|
of using it. But this would be an attempt to set up a system of feudal
|
|
exploitation in the midst of a free community. Thus the community is
|
|
justified in disarming this would-be parasite and ignoring his claims to
|
|
"own" more land than he can use himself.
|
|
|
|
In other words, there is no "right" to adopt an "inegalitarian way of
|
|
life" within a libertarian community, since such a right would have to be
|
|
enforced by the creation of a coercive system of enslavement, which would
|
|
mean the end of the "libertarian" community. To the contrary, the
|
|
members of such a community have a right, guaranteed by "the people in
|
|
arms," to resist such attempts to enslave them.
|
|
|
|
The statement that "left" anarchists have "occasionally" insisted that
|
|
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivized is too
|
|
weak. No responsible left libertarian advocates forced collectivization,
|
|
i.e. compelling others to join collectives. Self-employment is always an
|
|
option. Thus during the Spanish Revolution, small farmers who did not
|
|
wish to join collective farms were allowed to keep as much land as they
|
|
could work themselves. After perceiving the advantages of collectives,
|
|
however, many joined them voluntarily [see Sam Dolgoff, ed., _The
|
|
Anarchist Collectives_]. To claim that social anarchists "occasionally"
|
|
oppose forced collectivisation is a smear, pure and simple, with little
|
|
basis in anarchist activity and even less in anarchist theory.
|
|
|
|
F.10.5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
|
|
|
|
[10.] This section (How would anarcho-capitalism work?) contains Caplan's
|
|
summary of arguments for "anarcho"-capitalism, which he describes as an
|
|
offshoot of Libertarianism. Thus:
|
|
|
|
"So-called 'minarchist' libertarians such as Nozick have argued that the
|
|
largest justified government was one which was limited to the protection
|
|
of individuals and their private property against physical invasion;
|
|
accordingly, they favour a government limited to supplying police, courts,
|
|
a legal code, and national defence."
|
|
|
|
The first thing to note about this argument is that it is stated in such a
|
|
way as to prejudice the reader against the left-libertarian critique of
|
|
private property. The minarchist "libertarian," it is said, only wants to
|
|
protect individuals and their private property against "physical
|
|
invasion." But, because of the loose way in which the term "property" is
|
|
generally used, the "private property" of most "individuals" is commonly
|
|
thought of as *personal* *possessions,* i.e. cars, houses, clothing,
|
|
etc. (For the left-libertarian distinction between private property and
|
|
possessions, see B.3.1.) Therefore the argument makes it appear that
|
|
right libertarians are in favour of protecting personal possessions
|
|
whereas left-libertarians are not, thus conjuring up a world where, for
|
|
example, there would be no protection against one's house being
|
|
"physically invaded" by an intruder or a stranger stealing the shirt off
|
|
one's back!
|
|
|
|
By lumping the protection of "individuals" together with the protection of
|
|
their "private property," the argument implies that right libertarians
|
|
are concerned with the welfare of the vast majority of the population,
|
|
whereas in reality, the vast majority of "individuals" *don't* *own* any
|
|
private property (i.e. means of production) -- only a handful of
|
|
capitalists do. Moreover, these capitalists use their private property to
|
|
exploit the working class, leading to impoverishment, alienation, etc., and
|
|
thus *damaging* most individuals rather than "protecting" them.
|
|
|
|
Caplan goes on:
|
|
|
|
"This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic theory,
|
|
according to which private property and unregulated competition generally
|
|
lead to both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly) a
|
|
high rate of economic progress."
|
|
|
|
Caplan does not mention the obvious problems with this "theory," e.g. that
|
|
during the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the US there was vast
|
|
wealth disparity, with an enormous mass of impoverished people living in
|
|
slums in the major cities -- hardly an "efficient" allocation of resources
|
|
or an example of "progress." Of course, if one defines "efficiency" as
|
|
"the most effective means of exploiting the working class" and "progress"
|
|
as "a high rate of profit for investors," then the conclusion of the "theory"
|
|
does indeed follow.
|
|
|
|
Next we get to the meat of the defence of "anarcho"-capitalism:
|
|
|
|
"Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own logic
|
|
against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state could not
|
|
be turned over to the free market. And so, the anarcho-capitalist
|
|
imagines that police services could be sold by freely competitive firms;
|
|
that a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between
|
|
firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom,
|
|
precedent, and contract."
|
|
|
|
Indeed, the functions in question could certainly be turned over to the
|
|
"free" market, as was done in certain areas of the US during the 19th
|
|
century, e.g. the coal towns that were virtually owned by private coal
|
|
companies. We have already discussed the negative impact of that
|
|
experiment on the working class in section F.6.2. Our objection is not
|
|
that such privatization can't be done, but that it is an error to call it
|
|
a form of anarchism. In reality it is an extreme form of laissez-faire
|
|
capitalism, which is the exact opposite of anarchism. The defence of
|
|
private power by private police is hardly a move towards the end of
|
|
authority, nor are collections of private states an example of anarchism.
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing
|
|
reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration and
|
|
mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability to
|
|
supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of
|
|
necessity a government monopoly."
|
|
|
|
That the law code of the state is being defended by private companies is
|
|
hardly a step towards anarchy. This indicates exactly why an "anarcho"-
|
|
capitalist system will be a collection of private states united around a
|
|
common, capitalistic, and hierarchical law code. In addition, this system
|
|
does not abolish the monopoly of government over society represented by
|
|
the "general libertarian law code," nor the monopoly of power that owners
|
|
have over their property and those who use it. The difference between
|
|
public and private statism is that the boss can select which law
|
|
enforcement agents will enforce his or her power.
|
|
|
|
The threat to freedom and justice for the working class is clear. The
|
|
thug-like nature of many private security guards enforcing private power
|
|
is well documented. For example, the beating of protesters by "private
|
|
cops" is a common sight in anti-motorway campaigns or when animal right
|
|
activists attempt to disrupt fox hunts. The shooting of strikers during
|
|
strikes occurred during the peak period of American laissez-faire
|
|
capitalism. However, as most forms of protest involve the violation of
|
|
"absolute" property rights, the "justice" system under "anarcho"-capitalism
|
|
would undoubtedly fine the victims of such attacks by private cops.
|
|
|
|
It is also interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalist "hails" what are actually
|
|
symptoms of social breakdown under capitalism. With increasing wealth
|
|
disparity, poverty, and chronic high unemployment, society is becoming
|
|
polarized into those who can afford to live in secure, gated communities
|
|
and those who cannot. The latter are increasingly marginalized in ghettos
|
|
and poor neighbourhoods where drug-dealing, prostitution, and theft become
|
|
main forms of livelihood, with gangs offering a feudalistic type of
|
|
"protection" to those who join or pay tribute to them. Under
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalism, the only change would be that drug-dealing and
|
|
prostitution would be legalized and gangs could start calling themselves
|
|
"defence companies."
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government services
|
|
would take over _all_ legitimate security services. One plausible market
|
|
structure would involve individuals subscribing to one of a large number
|
|
of competing police services; these police services would then set up
|
|
contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between members of
|
|
each others' agencies. Alternately, police services might be "bundled"
|
|
with housing services, just as landlords often bundle water and power
|
|
with rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to
|
|
residents in gated communities and apartment complexes."
|
|
|
|
This is a scenario designed with the middle and upper classes in mind.
|
|
But under capitalism, the tendency toward capital concentration leads to
|
|
increasing wealth polarization, which means a shrinking middle class and a
|
|
growing underclass. Thus the number of people who could afford to buy
|
|
protection and "justice" from the best companies would continually
|
|
decrease. For this reason there would be a growing number of people at
|
|
the mercy of the rich and powerful, particularly when it comes to matters
|
|
concerning employment, which is the main way in which the poor would be
|
|
victimized by the rich and powerful (as is indeed the case now).
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police
|
|
would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual
|
|
rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to
|
|
jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second,
|
|
firms will want to develop long-term business relationships, and hence be
|
|
willing to negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term
|
|
profitability. And third, aggressive firms would be likely to attract
|
|
only high-risk clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs (a
|
|
problem parallel to the well-known "adverse selection problem" in e.g.
|
|
medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people are
|
|
especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the price when
|
|
riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a
|
|
uniform price regardless of risk)."
|
|
|
|
The theory that "failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly
|
|
destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits" can be faulted in two
|
|
ways. Firstly, if warfare would be bad for profits, what is to stop a
|
|
large "defence association" from ignoring a smaller one's claim? If
|
|
warfare were "bad for business," it would be even worse for a small
|
|
company without the capital to survive a conflict, which could give big
|
|
"defence associations" the leverage to force compliance with their business
|
|
interests. Price wars are often bad for business, but companies sometimes
|
|
start them if they think they can win. Secondly -- and this is equally
|
|
if not more likely -- a "balance of power" method to stop warfare has
|
|
little to recommend it from history. This can be seen from the First World
|
|
War and feudal society.
|
|
|
|
What the "anarcho"-capitalist is describing is essentially a system of
|
|
"industrial feudalism" wherein people contract for "protection" with armed
|
|
gangs of their choice. Feudal societies have never been known to be
|
|
peaceful, even though war is always "unprofitable" for one side or the
|
|
other or both. The argument fails to consider that "defence companies,"
|
|
whether they be called police forces, paramilitaries or full-blown armies, tend
|
|
to attract the "martial" type of authoritarian personality, and that this
|
|
type of "macho" personality thrives on and finds its reason for existence in
|
|
armed conflict and other forms of interpersonal violence and intimidation.
|
|
Hence feudal society is continually wracked by battles between the forces
|
|
of opposing warlords, because such conflicts allow the combatants a chance to
|
|
"prove their manhood," vent their aggression, obtain honours and titles,
|
|
advance in the ranks, obtain spoils, etc. The "anarcho" capitalist has
|
|
given no reason why warfare among legalized gangs would not continue under
|
|
industrial feudalism, except the extremely lame reason that it would not
|
|
be profitable -- a reason that has never prevented war in any known feudal
|
|
society.
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that the above is not an argument from "original sin."
|
|
Feudal societies are characterized by conflict between opposing
|
|
"protection agencies" not because of the innate depravity of human beings
|
|
but because of a social structure based on private property and hierarchy,
|
|
which brings out the latent capacities for violence, domination, greed,
|
|
etc. that humans have by creating a financial incentive to be so. But this
|
|
is not to say that a different social structure would not bring out latent
|
|
capacities for much different qualities like sharing, peaceableness, and cooperation, which human beings also have. In fact, as Kropotkin argued in _Mutual Aid_ and as recent anthropologists have confirmed in greater detail,
|
|
ancient societies based on communal ownership of productive assets and little
|
|
social hierarchy were basically peaceful, with no signs of warfare for thousands
|
|
of years.
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that their
|
|
"private police agencies" would be equivalent to today's Mafia -- the cost
|
|
advantages of open, legitimate business would make "criminal police"
|
|
uncompetitive. (Moreover, they argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the
|
|
artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs,
|
|
prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might
|
|
kill each other over turf, but liquor-store owners generally do not.)"
|
|
|
|
As we have pointed out in F.6.2, the "Mafia" objection to
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist defence companies is a red herring. The biggest
|
|
problem would not be "criminal police" but the fact that the rich would be
|
|
able to buy better police protection and "justice" than the poor and that
|
|
the "general" law code these companies would defend would be slanted towards
|
|
the interests and power of the capitalist class. And as we also noted, such
|
|
a system has already been tried in 19th-century America, with the result that
|
|
the rich reduced the working class to a serf-like existence, capitalist
|
|
production undermined independent producers (to the annoyance of
|
|
individualist anarchists at the time), and the result was the emergence of
|
|
the corporate America that "anarcho"-capitalists say they oppose.
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no objection
|
|
to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim that punishment
|
|
does not deter crime to be the height of naivete. Traditional punishment
|
|
might be meted out after a conviction by a neutral arbitrator; or a system
|
|
of monetary restitution (probably in conjunction with a prison factory
|
|
system) might exist instead."
|
|
|
|
Let us note first that in disputes between the capitalist class and the
|
|
working class, there would be no "neutral arbitrator," because the rich
|
|
would either own the arbitration company or influence/control it through
|
|
the power of the purse (see section F.6). In addition, "successful"
|
|
arbitrators would also be wealthy, therefore making neutrality even more
|
|
unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Second, the left-libertarian critique of punishment does not rest, as
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalists claim, on the naive view that intimidation and
|
|
coercion aren't effective in controlling behaviour. Rather, it rests on
|
|
the premise that capitalist societies produce large numbers of criminals,
|
|
whereas societies based on equality and community ownership of productive
|
|
assets do not.
|
|
|
|
The argument for this is that societies based on private property and
|
|
hierarchy inevitably lead to a huge gap between the haves and the
|
|
have-nots, with the latter sunk in poverty, alienation, resentment, anger,
|
|
and hopelessness, while at the same time such societies promote greed,
|
|
ambition, ruthlessness, deceit, and other aspects of competitive
|
|
individualism that destroy communal values like sharing, cooperation, and
|
|
mutual aid. Thus in capitalist societies, the vast majority of "crime"
|
|
turns out to be so-called "crimes against property," which can be traced
|
|
to poverty and the grossly unfair distribution of wealth. Where the top
|
|
one percent of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90
|
|
percent combined, it is no wonder that a considerable number of those on
|
|
the bottom should try to recoup illegally some of the maldistributed
|
|
wealth they cannot obtain legally. (In this they are encouraged by the
|
|
bad example of the ruling class, whose parasitic ways of making a living
|
|
would be classified as criminal if the mechanisms for defining "criminal
|
|
behavior" were not controlled by the ruling class itself.) And most of the
|
|
remaining "crimes against persons" can be traced to the alienation,
|
|
dehumanization, frustration, rage, and other negative emotions produced
|
|
by the inhumane and unjust economic system.
|
|
|
|
Thus it is only in our societies like ours, with their wholesale
|
|
manufacture of many different kinds of criminals, that punishment appears
|
|
to be the only possible way to discourage "crime." From the
|
|
left-libertarian perspective, however, the punitive approach is a band-aid
|
|
measure that does not get to the real root of the problem -- a problem
|
|
that lies in the structure of the system itself. The real solution is the
|
|
creation of a non-hierarchical society based on communal ownership of
|
|
productive assets, which, by eliminating poverty and the other negative
|
|
effects of capitalism, would greatly reduce the incidence of criminal
|
|
behaviour and so the need for punitive countermeasures.
|
|
|
|
Finally, as to the desirability of a "prison factory system," we will
|
|
merely note that, given the capitalist principle of "grow-or-die," if
|
|
punishing crime becomes Big Business, one can be sure that those who
|
|
profit from it will find ways to ensure that the "criminal" population keeps
|
|
expanding at a rate sufficient to maintain a high rate of profit and growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the
|
|
apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David
|
|
Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the
|
|
need for a generally recognized libertarian legal code (which he thinks
|
|
could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American
|
|
common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of
|
|
plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands
|
|
of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is
|
|
probably overstated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for
|
|
consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the
|
|
law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property
|
|
right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits
|
|
that 'focal points' including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe
|
|
and somewhat standardize the menu of available legal codes."
|
|
|
|
The argument that "consumer demand" would determine a "philosophically
|
|
neutral" content of the law cannot be sustained. Any law code will
|
|
reflect the philosophy of those who create it. Under "anarcho"-capitalism,
|
|
as we have noted (see section F.6), the values of the capitalist rich
|
|
will be dominant and will shape the law code and justice system, as they
|
|
do now, only more so. The law code will therefore continue to give priority
|
|
to the protection of private property over human values; those who have the
|
|
most money will continue being able to hire the best lawyers; and the best
|
|
(i.e. most highly paid) judges will be inclined to side with the wealthy and
|
|
to rule in their interests, out of class loyalty (and personal interests).
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or worker-owned
|
|
firms would be penalized or prohibited in an anarcho-capitalist society. It
|
|
would be more accurate to state that while individuals would be free to
|
|
voluntarily form communitarian organizations, the anarcho-capitalist simply doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent."
|
|
|
|
There is good reason for this doubt. Worker cooperatives would not be
|
|
widespread or prevalent in an "anarcho-capitalist society for the same
|
|
reason that they are not widespread or prevalent now: namely, that the
|
|
socioeconomic, legal, and political systems would be structured in such as
|
|
way as to automatically discourage their growth.
|
|
|
|
As we will explain in more detail in J.5.2, the reason why there are not
|
|
more producer cooperatives is structural, based on the fact that
|
|
cooperatives have a tendency to grow at a slower rate than capitalist
|
|
firms. This is a good thing if one's primary concern is, say, protecting
|
|
the environment, but fatal if one is trying to survive in a competitive
|
|
capitalist environment.
|
|
|
|
Under capitalism, successful competition for profits is the fundamental
|
|
fact of economic survival. This means that banks and private investors
|
|
seeking the highest returns on their investments will favour those
|
|
companies that grow the fastest. Under such conditions, capitalist firms
|
|
will attract more investment capital, allowing them to buy more
|
|
productivity-enhancing technology and thus to sell their products more
|
|
cheaply than cooperatives. Hence there will be pressure on the
|
|
cooperatives to compete more effectively by adopting the same cost-cutting
|
|
and profit-enhancing measures as capitalist firms. Such measures will
|
|
include the deskilling of workers; squeezing as much "productivity" as is
|
|
humanly possible from them; and a system of pay differentials in
|
|
which the majority of workers receive low wages while the bulk of profits
|
|
are reinvested in technology upgrades and other capital expansion that
|
|
keeps pace with capitalist firms. But this means that in a capitalist
|
|
environment, there tend to be few practical advantages for workers in
|
|
collective ownership of the firms in which they work.
|
|
|
|
This problem can only be solved by eliminating private property and the
|
|
coercive statist mechanisms required to protect it (including private states
|
|
masquerading as "protection companies"), because this is the only way to
|
|
eliminate competition for profits as the driving force of economic
|
|
activity. In a libertarian socialist environment, federated associations
|
|
of workers in cooperative enterprises would coordinate production for
|
|
*use* rather than profit, thus eliminating the competitive basis of the
|
|
economy and so also the "grow-or-die" principle which now puts
|
|
cooperatives at a fatal economic disadvantage. (For more on how such an
|
|
economy would be organized and operated, as well as answers to objections,
|
|
see section I.)
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"However, in theory an "anarcho-capitalist" society might be filled with
|
|
nothing but communes or worker-owned firms, so long as these associations
|
|
were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined voluntarily and capital
|
|
was obtained with the consent of the owners) and individuals retained the
|
|
right to exit and set up corporations or other profit-making,
|
|
individualistic firms."
|
|
|
|
It's interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalists are willing to allow
|
|
workers to set up "voluntary" cooperatives so long as the conditions are
|
|
retained which ensure that such cooperatives will have difficulty
|
|
surviving (i.e. private property and private states), but they are
|
|
unwilling to allow workers to set up cooperatives under conditions that
|
|
would ensure their success (i.e. the absence of private property and
|
|
private states). This reflects the usual vacuousness of the
|
|
right-libertarian concepts of "freedom" and "voluntarism."
|
|
|
|
In other words, these worker-owned firms would exist in and be subject
|
|
to the same capitalist "general libertarian law code" and work in the
|
|
same capitalist market as the rest of society. So, not only are these
|
|
cooperatives subject to capitalist market forces, they exist and operate
|
|
in a society defined by capitalist laws. As discussed in Section F.2,
|
|
such disregard for the social context of human action shows up the
|
|
"anarcho" capitalist's disregard for meaningful liberty.
|
|
|
|
All Caplan is arguing here is that as long as people remain within the
|
|
(capitalist) "law code," they can do whatever they like. However, what
|
|
determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent to
|
|
which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them. This is as
|
|
true of an "anarcho"-capitalist society as it is of any other. In other words,
|
|
if more and more people reject the basic assumptions of capitalism, the more
|
|
coercion against anarchistic tendencies will be required. Saying that
|
|
people would be free to experiment under "anarcho"-capitalist law (if they
|
|
can afford it, of course) does not address the issue of changes in social
|
|
awareness (caused, by example, by class struggle) which can make such "laws"
|
|
redundant. So, when all is said and done, "anarcho"-capitalism just states
|
|
that as long as you accept their rules, you are free to do what you like.
|
|
|
|
How generous of them!
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all from
|
|
the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatized and opened
|
|
to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic behavior should
|
|
be done away with."
|
|
|
|
The "anarcho"-capitalist's professed desire to "do away" with the
|
|
"regulation" of economic behaviour is entirely disingenuous. For, by
|
|
giving capitalists the ability to protect their exploitative monopolies of
|
|
social capital by the use of coercive private states, one is thereby
|
|
"regulating" the economy in the strongest possible way, i.e. ensuring that
|
|
it will be channeled in certain directions rather than others. For
|
|
example, one is guaranteeing that production will be for profit rather
|
|
than use; that there will consequently be runaway growth and an endless
|
|
devouring of nature based on the principle of "grow or die;" and that the
|
|
alienation and deskilling of the workforce will continue. What the
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist really means by "doing away with the regulation of
|
|
economic behaviour" is that ordinary people will have even less
|
|
opportunity than now to democratically control the rapacious behaviour of
|
|
capitalists. Needless to say, the "regulation of personal" behavior would
|
|
*not* be done away with in the workplace, where the authority of the
|
|
bosses would still exist and you would have follow their petty rules and
|
|
regulations.
|
|
|
|
Caplan:
|
|
|
|
"Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able to
|
|
care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot.
|
|
(Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly
|
|
increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of
|
|
taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.)"
|
|
|
|
Notice the implication that poverty is now caused by laziness and
|
|
irresponsibility rather than by the inevitable workings of an economic
|
|
system that *requires* a large "reserve army of the unemployed" as a
|
|
condition of profitability. The continuous "boom" economy of
|
|
"anarcho"-capitalist fantasies is simply incompatible with the fundamental
|
|
principles of capitalism. To requote Michael Kalecki, "Lasting full
|
|
employment is not at all to [the] liking [of business leaders]. The
|
|
workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be
|
|
anxious 'to teach them a lesson'" as "'discipline in the factories' and
|
|
`political stability' are more appreciated by business leaders than
|
|
profits. Their class interest tells them that lasting full employment is
|
|
unsound from their point of view and that unemployment is an integral
|
|
part of the 'normal' capitalist system" [_Political Aspects of Full
|
|
Employment_, 1943]. (See section C.7, "What causes the capitalist business
|
|
cycle?," for a fuller discussion of this point.)
|
|
|