| Revision as of 17:15, 26 April 2006 editInfinity0 (talk | contribs)7,944 edits it is being used as primary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:48, 7 September 2020 edit undoDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users104,028 editsm fix sectionTag: Redirect target changed | ||
| (733 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| {{POV-intro}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{R to section}} | ||
| {{secondary|}} | |||
| This article discusses ] and ]. As all traditional forms of anarchism expressly oppose ], there is much dispute, mostly by anarchists, on whether anarcho-capitalism is a true form of anarchism. In non-anarchist circles, opinion is divided. Some writers on anarchism say that anarcho-capitalism and other forms of anarchism are very different, relating it to ] than to anarchism.<ref>], Jeremy. ''Contemporary Political Ideologies'', Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 142. ], Barbara. ''Using Political Ideas'', p. 148</ref> Peter Marshall concludes that "few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp" <ref>], Peter. Chapter 36, ''Demanding the Impossible''</ref> However, some writers do consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. <ref>], Richard. ''Anarchism''. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231. ], Richard T. ''Anarchism and Authority'', Anarchism (Nomos, XIX), Ed. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, New York: New York University Press, 1978, p. 108</ref> | |||
| Most anarchists (particularly social ones) maintain strongly that ] is not a form of ] (even though ] considers itself an ] philosophy) since they believe anarchism to be necessarily anti-capitalist as well as anti-statist.<ref>], ''Demanding the Impossible''; ], ''The Anarchist Moment''; ], ''Anarchism: Arguments for and Against''; ], ''Understanding Power''; ], ''Anarchist Justice''; ], ''Anthropology and Anarchism''; ''Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed'' (no. 45); ], ''Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy''; ], ''What is Anarchism?''; ], ''The Libertarian as Conservative''</ref> They note that "anarchy" etymologically means "without rulers",<ref></ref> rather than "without the State", and they argue that ] is characterized by such authoritative structures.<ref name="anarchist-coercive">], Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave ''et al'' ''] Version 11.4''. Accessed March, 2006.</ref> They note that historically anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism and that anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kroptkin and Tucker all called themselves socialists, and argue that anarcho-capitalism ''"is judged to be anarchism largely because anarcho-capitalists say they are 'anarchists' and because they criticise the State."'' <ref>Peter Sabatini, ''Social Anarchism'', no. 23, p. 100</ref> | |||
| On the other hand, anarcho-capitalists and a few historians view the theory as a 20th-century modification of the ] that was popular in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was less radical than ] individualist anarchism.<ref>], Carl. '''' in MSN Encarta</ref> Many anarchists and anarchist historians reject such claims, noting that many of the individualist anarchists called themselves ] and all had a vision of a free society at odds with capitalism. <ref>Peter Marshall, '''Demanding the Impossible'''; John Clark, '''The Anarchist Moment'''; David Weick, ''Anarchist Justice''; Peter Sabatini, ''Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy''</ref> This perspective echoes the opinions of modern day individualist anarchists who argue that it ''"is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of… individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians…"'' <ref>], ''"Native American Anarchism,"'' '''The Raven''', pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61-2</ref> | |||
| ==Capitalism and anarcho-capitalism== | |||
| ===Hierarchy and class distinction=== | |||
| Many 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. 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 name="anarchist-coercive"/> | |||
| Many 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 11.4'' Accessed March, 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"/> | |||
| ] 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>], Murray. 'The Ethics of Liberty', Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1982, p. 170 and p. 173</ref> Anarcho-capitalists acknowledge this similarity, but don't think that it's 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 other anarchists oppose the territorial authority of the landlord. 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." He strongly opposed the idea that initiation of force may somehow become legitimate merely by constituting a majority, reasoning that "If we are self-owners (and it is absurd, it is doing violence to reason, to suppose that we are not), neither an individual, nor a majority, nor a government can have rights of ownership in other men." He did, however, support government ''"formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method."'' Moreover, he argued that the state would remain in his system, for while ''"the state should compel no services and exact no payments by force,"'' it ''"should be free to conduct many useful undertakings... in competition with all voluntary agencies... in dependence on voluntary payments."'' <ref>Herbert, Auberon. </ref> | |||
| 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, even though France had a significant anarchist movement and had produced the first self-proclaimed anarchist (Proudhon). | |||
| 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> However, anarchists are unimpressed by this claim. David Weick, in direct reply to Rothbard, notes that this system would simply be private police enforcing private power and better called ''"feudalism."'' In other words, anarchists simply reply that this is privatising, not abolishing, the state. Similarly, anarchists ask who defines what is and is not a "legal sanction" and what is and is not "aggressive coercion." To abolish the state while having a monopoly law system seems simply playing with words. <ref>Pennock and Chapman, ''"Anarchist Justice"'', '''Nomos XIX''', eds.</ref> | |||
| Anarchists also note that once land and capital are monopolised by a minority, attempts by those subject to this economic and social power to end it automatically become "aggression." As Kropotkin noted, the ''"modern Individualism… a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem… lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."''<ref>], Peter. ''Act for Yourselves'', Freedom Press London (1988), p98.</ref> | |||
| Individualist anarchists do advocate private defense agencies, however they varied over land, with Tucker supporting protection of land only as long as it was in use and Spooner supporting protection of land even if use is discontinued, as anarcho-capitalists do. For Tucker, ''"'The land for the people'… means the protection by… voluntary associations for the maintenance of justice… and the positive refusal of the protecting power to lend its aid to the collection of any rent, whatsoever."''<ref>], Benjamin. ''Instead of a Book'', p299.</ref> As such, this similarity does not mean that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism than anarchist communist opposition to wage labour makes it a form of Marxism. | |||
| <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 referred 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. | |||
| ] ] from holds that ] and ] are incompatible, as ''"capitalism could not have survived at any point in its history without state intervention."'' He argues that if individualist anarchism were to be put into effect it would result in the end of capitalism, as ''"a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor -- could not survive in a free market."'' Anarcho-capitalists disagree, with most stating that their economic system would be marked by hierarchy, inequality as well as interest, rent and profit. Mainstream right-libertarians, Carson argues, ''"take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal 'free market' is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism."'' Carson, like previous individualist anarchists, thinks that the ''"modern worker, like the slave or the serf, is the victim of ongoing robbery; he works in an enterprise built from past stolen labor"'' and so they are ''"justified in taking direct control of production, and keeping the entire product of his labor.''" <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 --> Anarcho-capitalists would consider such expropriation as coercion. | |||
| These differences flows from differing perspectives on the property rights underlying their vision of a "free market." Many individualist anarchists reject the anarcho-capitalist ] position in favour of the anarchist position of ''"occupancy and use"'' (or "possession", to use ]'s term), particularly in land. One notable exception is Lysander Spooner, who does not require that land use be "continual" to retain ownership. Similarly, anarcho-capitalist Rothbard argued that one must "''use the land, to ''cultivate'' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.''" and did not require continual use to retain ownership. However, most individualist anarchists accepted Proudhon's position on land: ''"What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on."'' If there was a shortage of land, he ''"accept equal division. Anything else… is an abuse."'' <ref>''Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon'', p. 129</ref> Anarchists also note that Proudhon's ''"]"'' explicitly refutes the position on land ownership supported by Spooner and anarcho-capitalists. <ref>], Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave ''et al'' ''] Version 11.4''. Accessed March, 2006.</ref> | |||
| As such, the term "free market" may describe different things by individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists when it comes to land. Unsurprisingly, while the former may consider the latter's "free market" as being somewhat better than the current corporate/state managed system, they do not consider it as a genuine free market. For individualist anarchists, in a true free market economy 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. | |||
| == 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 --> | |||
| <div style="font-size:85%"> | |||
| <references/> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == External links == | |||
| * - Section F of ] | |||
| * 19th Century Individualist Anarchist influence on Libertarianism by Wendy McElroy | |||
| * from ''The Conquest of Power'', by Albert Weisbord | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
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.