| Revision as of 19:23, 10 March 2006 editRJII (talk | contribs)25,810 edits →Hierarchy: individualist strongly oppose social anarchists← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:48, 7 September 2020 edit undoDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users103,894 editsm fix sectionTag: Redirect target changed | ||
| (935 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| {{npov}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{R to section}} | ||
| This article discusses how anarcho-capitalism compares and contrasts to other forms of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Whether ] is a form of ] is a subject of frequent, heavy, and detailed dispute. Many anarchists maintain strongly that ] is not a form of ] (even though ] is an ] philosophy) since they believe anarchism to be necessarily anti-capitalist as well as anti-statist. They note that "anarchy" means "without rulers",<ref></ref> rather than "without the State", and they argue that ] is characterized by such authoritative structures<ref> - An Anarchist FAQ from ]</ref> Historically, anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism. Some anarcho-capitalists, however, argue that "anarchism" refers exclusively to anti-statism,<ref></ref>. | |||
| ==Capitalism and anarcho-capitalism== | |||
| ===Hierarchy=== | |||
| Communist anarchists oppose "hierarchy." Most anarchists deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, arguing that capitalism runs contrary to an egalitarian power structure, which is necessary to anarchism.{{fact}} They also argue that the system of ], and hence capitalism, is unanarchist, authoritarian, and coercive in nature<ref>Three sources; ], ''Anarchist Justice'', pp. 223-224; ], ''Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy''; Kropotkin, ''Anarchism'';</ref>. A major line of reasoning is that employees are subject to the authority of their employer with respect to the latter's property and, because such an hierarchy could not be tolerated within an egalitarian power structure, it is essential to anarchism for such practices to be abolished.<ref> ''An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.2''.</ref>. | |||
| Most anarchists oppose the clear class distinction between labourers and employers in capitalism. For example, the social anarchist writers of "An Anarchist FAQ"<ref name="anarchistFAQ">], Iain; ], Gary; ], Dave ''et al'' ''An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.2'' Accessed February 20, 2006.</ref>, argue that "social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination".<ref name="anarchist-coercive">], Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave ''et al'' ''An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.2''. Accessed February 20, 2006.</ref>. | |||
| Individualist anarchists strongly oppose "social anarchists" and do not state an opposition to "hierarchy."{{dubious}} ] also opposed this class distinction, but do not object to private ownership of the means of production. They want to minimize the necessity of working for an employer; for example, ] wanted to maximize self-employment "either singly, or in ]" <ref>Lysander Spooner, "A Letter to Grover Cleveland", p. 41</ref>, and advocated that everyone should labor to receive an income. ] wanted to eliminate the possibility of an employer receiving an income without himself laboring so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers"<ref name="tucker-pay">], Benjamin. ''""'' Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker, Vanguard Press, New York, 1926, Kraus Reprint Co., Millwood, NY, 1973.</ref>. To achieve this, he advocated a deregulated banking system so that entrepreneurs could obtain capital more easily and cheaply. The system was also intended to drive wages up to their "natural rate"<ref name="tucker-socialism">Tucker, ''"Benjamin. "'', excerpt from ''"Individual Liberty - Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker"''</ref>. | |||
| ===Property=== | |||
| Some anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, that the anarcho-capitalist definition of private property is uncomfortably similar to its definition of the state. For example, leading anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard argued that the state ''"arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area territorial area."'', yet he also argued that ''"bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."'' <ref></ref> Anarcho-capitalists acknowledge the similarity, but deny that it is contradictory. They argue that the territory of states are not acquired legitimately (e.g. homesteading, voluntary trade), but that private property is. Opponents emphasize that both the State and private property, upon which capitalism is based, lead to the same authoritarian structures, and consequently neither should be considered anarchist. Moreover, both social and individualist anarchists note that current distributions of property have not been created by legitimate means and that the current system of property rights is also the result of state and capitalist intervention. <ref>McKay, Iain ''""'' '' Accessed March 09, 2006. </ref> The argument thus has the same substance as the wider dispute between ] and ] as to whether means or ends are of primary importance. | |||
| Unlike anarcho-capitalists, most anarchists oppose private property in land. However, some individualist anarchists, such as ] favored it,<ref>Watner, Carl. in The Libertarian Forum. March 1975. Volume VII, No 3. ISSN: 0047-4517. pp. 5-6.</ref>, but most including Tucker, argue for an "occupancy and use" system of possession (as suggested by Proudhon's ]). | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| Though the modern form of anarcho-capitalism did not exist in Tucker's day, there was a similar philosophy called ] popularized by ]. Tucker criticized Herbert's support of profit, but believed that Herbert's anti-statism would nevertheless result in a profitless economy.<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. ''Liberty'', Vol. 3, No. 10, Saturday, May 23 1885, Whole No. 62</ref>. It should be noted that Herbert refused to call himself an anarchist, arguing that ''"we are governmentalists"'' but was defining government in not in the sense of a tax-funded entity that initiates coercion, but as voluntarily funded private defense that uses force "against those who are "aggressives" upon others; never against the "nonaggressives."<ref>Herbert, Auberon. ''ESSAY X: THE PRINCIPLES OF VOLUNTARYISM AND FREE LIFE'' </ref> Similarly, the 19th century French economist Gustave de Molinari, although he proposed the replacement of the state in a fashion quite similar to anarcho-capitalism, refused to call himself an anarchist. Benjamin Tucker also advocated private defense, saying that "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand...the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices" (''Instead of a Book''). Victor Yarros explains that individualist "Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection"<ref>Yarros, Victor ''Our Revolution; Essays and Interpretations'' p.80</ref>. Similarly, Rothbard supports voluntarily-funded private defense and defines "anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression " and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion."<ref>Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) ''Libertarian Forum'' newsletter (January 1975)</ref> | |||
| <div style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-size:85%">''end npov section''</div> | |||
| According to some, such as , capitalism is an economic ] that includes its own ]. They place anarcho-capitalism outside of the anarchist movement, and into the ]: "plutarchy without statism = liberalism." Some, while accepting that anarcho-capitalism is a radical form of liberalism, question the coherence of such a statement, holding that if socialism and communism can have anarchist forms, then liberalism can as well.<ref>Gardner, Richard A. (2002) ''Ifeminists'' May 14 2002</ref> For example, ] is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism."<ref>Weisbord, Albert (1937) from ''The Conquest of Power'' (1937)</ref> Also, since anarchists by definition favour voluntary interaction, what anarcho-capitalists perceive to be voluntary does not accord with what other anarchists believe to be voluntary. Naturally, this leads to a dispute over whether anarcho-capitalists truly support a "free market." | |||
| == Profit and the labor theory of value == | |||
| Anarchists traditionally have espoused the classical ] which they put forth as a basis for claiming that ] is ]. While classical capitalists such as ] also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, espouse a ] and ] - that value of commodities and labor is variable and based on factors outside the means of production, such as scarcity, and the subjective value to potential buyers. | |||
| Profit in the former case is derived by paying labor less than its full product, with the employer retaining the difference, and is considered ] in traditional anarchism. In the latter case, both employer and employee profit by giving what they value less (equipment and labor, respectively) for what they value more (labour and wages, respectively) or else they would not agree to trade, and therefore the agreement is not considered exploitive by anarcho-capitalists. | |||
| However, many modern anarchists do not espouse the labour theory of value, yet still believe profit to be exploitative for other reasons. <ref>], Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave ''et al'' ''An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.4''. Accessed March 20, 2006.</ref> | |||
| == Reconciling views on anarchism == | |||
| Some anarcho-capitalists argue that their philosophy is related to ]. They believe a major difficulty in resolving the debate is due to the conflicting definitions of the words "]" and "]" as used by the two sides. The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to political movements that are both ] and ].{{fact}} Conversely, ] and anarcho-capitalists most commonly use the term "anarchism" to refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (without specifications regarding economic systems).<ref>Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) ''Libertarian Forum'' newsletter (January 1975)</ref> However, even this is disputed, as many anarchists argue that capitalism is inherently coercive.<ref name="anarchist-coercive" /> | |||
| The terminological confusion is illustrated by individualist anarchist Larry Gambone, who says that when the classical anarchists use the term "capitalism," they are referring to those who have "gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government."<ref>Gambone, Larry (1998) ''Total Liberty'' Volume 1 Number 3 Autumn 1998, Retrieved ] ]</ref> Likewise, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists refered to "capitalism" they meant ], the alliance of government and business.<ref>] (1999) </ref> This is something that anarcho-capitalists also oppose. | |||
| All anarchists favor voluntary interaction, but what anarcho-capitalists perceive as being voluntary does not accord with what traditional anarchists believe to be voluntary. Naturally, this leads to a dispute over whether anarcho-capitalists truly support a "free market." Anarcho-capitalists (and capitalists in general) understand a trade to be voluntary in a strict sense as a trade without physical coercion or threat thereof. In contrast, philosophies holding to the labor theory of value argue that a trade is not made in a social vacuum but involves the surrounding environment, and that an environment of property domination will coerce individuals into accepting trades that are not optimal to them because their choices are being actively restricted by others. However, this is not the case with individualist anarchists. They do not see this as coercion. | |||
| Individualist anarchist ] from holds that the division between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists on economic matters is not as wide as it seems. He argues that if anarcho-capitalism were to be put into effect it would result in a system where the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible - similar to the traditional individualist anarchist scenario. He argues that the centralization of wealth into a class hierarchy is due to state intervention to protect the ruling class, and concludes that under a true free market economy, the class distinctions between labourers and employers would be impossible, resulting in a classless society where people could easily choose between working as a freelancer, for a wage, taking part of a cooperative, or being an entrepreneur.<ref>Carson, Kevin A. (2002) Red Lion Press, Retrieved ] ] | |||
| </ref> <!-- http://www.attackthesystem.com/capitalism.html saving this for a means to proprly cite it --> | |||
| == Notes == | |||
| <!--This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add references to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/Cite/Cite.php --> | |||
| <references/> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == External links == | |||
| * - An Anarchist FAQ hosted by ] written by a (virtual) working group | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 21:48, 7 September 2020
Redirect to:
- To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject. For redirects to embedded anchors on a page, use {{R to anchor}} instead.