by 
[ad]It seems a lot of the criticism towards myself as well as my attempt to finally “unify” the anarchist movement, through stripping it of the dogmatic, false belief that there are incompatible schools of anarchisms, is based on the uses and definitions of the word capitalism. In endless posts on anarchist forums I have been attacked in person or indirectly through my writings for my being capitalist, while I’ve also been attacked numerous times by statist libertarians (a.k.a. minarchists) and anarcho-capitalists for not being a capitalist.
It seems obvious that both of these criticisms cannot be right, but also that one of them should. In fact, however, they are both wrong. I am both a very strong opponent of capitalism and believe very strongly that capitalism is synonymous with the only true free society.
The reason for this is not an inherent contradiction in my views, but lies solely in the dogmatic view of the critic. Those who criticize me for being a capitalist while “pretending” to be anarchist/libertarian see capitalism as an economic system very much like the one we have today. It is a system of hierarchy based on privileges. Capitalism steals from the poor and gives to the rich; it regulates, oppresses, and exploits those who aren’t in the right networks and those who lack the “right” contacts, and it rewards those who are loyal to Power.
Capitalism is in this sense but a newer version of old-style oppressive feudalism. Instead of local or regional lords with the permission from the monarch to tax and enslave their people, we have huge corporations given the privileges by the State to conduct business and reap profits at tax payers’ expense. These protected capitalists are as privileged as the feudal lords; their privileges are basically the same.
Even though many don’t seem to realize this, such a system is fundamentally based on State power. It cannot survive without a monopoly of violence continuously enforcing and upholding the privileges – there’s nothing inherent in production, trade, consumption or money that creates a privileged wealthy class with a “right” to oppress others. This is a state of things dependent on law, and therefore on the State.
When large corporations establish a new factory, without being concerned with former or neighboring property owners’ rights nor with the environment or whatever, they do so not because it is an inherently profitable move. It is only profitable because they have been given the legal right (privilege) to do so, and can thereby escape most of the costs arising due to the disrespectful choice of location, production process, plant size, etc.
The same is true with the enormous benefits of the so-called economies of scale available to contemporary corporations. There is no reason to believe bigger is always better; in fact, the opposite is often true, the smaller is better fit for a flexible and changing world, has lower costs (no bureaucracy), relies on its direct relationship with customers, etc. But the all-encompassing State continuously subsidizes big business through supplying public roads, free or cheap land and labor, tailor-made legislation and monopolies, or even corporate welfare.
The reason it is always profitable to grow and expand and become bigger is solely because of the State. A huge plant may be able to produce a monstrous quantity of products at a low per-item cost, but only through being able to exploit cheap labor and free or almost free transportation is it a great deal. If corporations were to bear their costs for transportation they would find bigger at a certain point becomes more expensive.
If this system is capitalism, I am absolutely opposed to it. If this is capitalism, I am an anti-capitalist to 100%.
But this is not in any sense what anarcho-capitalist thinkers mean by capitalism. On the contrary, anarcho-capitalists are as strongly opposed to this system of State enforcement and privilege for corporate interests – call it corporatism, capitalism, fascism, or whatever – as I am. To anarcho-capitalists, capitalism is everything the contemporary system is not (even though there are, indeed, a number of ignorant status quo-hailing anarcho-capitalists – just as there are a bunch of utterly ignorant “money is the true evil” anti-capitalist anarchists).
Capitalism to anarcho-capitalists is what individualist anarchists and mutualists refer to as the “free market.” It is the state of things without government, where trade is free and voluntary and something that individuals engage in if they find it in there interest to do so (and they often should). The free market, even though it may include large-scale production, sees no privileges and no special deals for corporations. On the contrary, in this free market capitalism there is no privileged class and also no one to hand out privileges.
Free individuals producing or exchanging goods and services, whether they do it separately or in groups/collectives and in a money or barter economy, do not create a system of privilege. If it were the case that free individuals voluntarily interacting with each other would always, through some kind of inherent nature of interaction, create hierarchies and structures of power there would be no chance for freedom. Ever. So it simply cannot be true that free individuals in voluntary interaction will be destined to create states and exploitative relationships.
Not even the existence of property would cause such a hierarchy, unless property itself is established by the State (and it cannot if there is no State). Property according to anarcho-capitalists is a right to use and control that which you have legitimately acquired – and this can only be done through directly mixing your own labor with that which is unowned and unused and unclaimed. Property, in other words, does not to anarcho-capitalists mean the same thing as de facto property is today. And a free market, even if based on the anarcho-capitalist definition of property, would not make the vast riches of the privileged class possible while keeping others in poverty; it would indeed make people wealthy, but the free market makes everybody wealthy – at nobody’s expense.
I, for one, do not fully share the view of property commonly advocated by some anarcho-capitalists, since I see great problems (philosophically) in the Lockean version of property acquisition that many anarcho-capitalists have basically adopted. Rather, I advocate a use-based approach to property that in a much better way makes use of the scarce resources in this world and also is better at both restricting ownership and allowing for more fair accumulation. It is a “softer” approach to property that literally takes the best of the private property and possession-right theories of ownership.
In either case, the anarcho-capitalist view of capitalism has nothing to do with the capitalism described above and used by the anti-capitalist anarchist schools. It is a seldom-mentioned and little known fact that Murray Rothbard, the anarcho-capitalist icon, was in favor of homesteading from the State – that e.g. workers have the right to take over their factories just like students and faculty have the right to take over state university campuses (see “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle” [pdf]). This should tell dogmatic anarchist anti-anarcho-capitalist folks something.
For the record, however, I do not call myself anarcho-capitalist even though I do use anarcho-capitalism as an example in this post. I am a market anarchist with views fitting nicely within the “triangle” of individualist anarchism, mutualism, and agorism – topped off with a little influence (but only a little) of Stirnerism. This view has a lot in common with much of anarcho-capitalism, no doubt, but it isn’t.
In general, I try to avoid using the word “capitalism” because it is so easily misunderstood, and because it seems a lot of people really don’t want to realize they are using it dogmatically so that they can continue to falsely dismiss people they don’t like (or don’t understand). I am nevertheless fully, completely, and absolutely opposed to capitalism in the former sense above, while a staunch proponent of capitalism in the latter. My views are, even though the same word is used in both the positive and negative, fully compatible. Indeed, since the word is used in two distinctly different ways – where one is almost the direct opposite of the other – it is necessary to be both pro and con capitalism. Unless your view prohibits people from freely and voluntarily interact and exchange favors, goods, and services – but that surely wouldn’t be anarchism.
Great essay! One quibble though. Actually, it’s more of a personal pet peeve regarding people who think of themselves as anarcho-capitalists.
But this is not in any sense what anarcho-capitalist thinkers mean by capitalism.
To your credit, you stated later in that paragraph that there are “a number of ignorant status quo-hailing anarcho-capitalists”.
As I see it, though, they’re all that way. The only person I know of who has identified with the word capitalism at some point who hasn’t engaged in at least some statist-quo apology is Sunni Maravillosa – kudos to her! All of the folks associated with the LRC cult, to the contrary, engage in such ignorance at least to some extent.
What I see amongst those who identify as “anarcho-capitalists” are people who essentially identify with the actually existing economic system – they generally LIKE the effects of statist distortion of markets. Even Butler Shaffer, someone who should know better, has written a few Walmart apology pieces for LRC. I sometimes wonder if writing at least one such piece is some sort of prerequisite for being admitted into the cult.
Ask someone like Lew Rockwell himself to define capitalism, and you’ll get the standard “free enterprise” reply. If that’s really the case, then how can he give speeches like this with a straight face? How can he claim that capitalism is all about free enterprise and then praise the “heroic” Chinese for embracing capitalism? Such blatant inconsistency promotes confusion while perpetuating the long-standing libertarian tradition of self-marginalization.
Responding to freeman,
The reason I put “anarcho-capitalist thinkers” rather than just “anarcho-capitalists” in the sentence you quote is exactly what you write: there is a quite prevalent view among anarcho-capitalists that there is more market in the current economic system than there is. This is much less so among anarcho-capitalist thinkers, at least if we take that word to mean more than writing opinion pieces somewhere on the Internet.
I am not myself sure where this view comes from, but I suspect the knee-jerk defense for big business when there seems to be only two sides one can take (State or Big Business) is an effect of most anarcho-capitalists having a background in the political right. This would explain why so many of them disregard statist distortion of markets; they haven’t learned how to identify them properly, and so they tend to believe the economic system of today is a lot freer (more market) than it is.
This is the view of many Objectivists, for example, who tend to support and defend Big Business no matter what. Their claim that business is oppressed by the State is of course correct, but it is also true that Big Business is often (always?) in a symbiotic relationship with the State. The case for Microsoft against the State can be made easily, but one cannot adopt a black-or-white view: Microsoft isn’t only a victim of State oppression – it is also a product of State privileges and intervention in the marketplace. The fact that Microsoft uses the State system to keep competitors out (through e.g. claiming their “right” in accordance with State privileges such as IP rights) is obvious to anyone interested in truth.
Objectivists are well-known for being black-or-white in their reasoning and opinions. But I think often anarcho-capitalists too get a bit blinded by the fact that big government advocates often argue against actors in the marketplace and therefore they conclude that these market actors, be they Big Business or not, are playing on the other (good) side. The anarcho-capitalist ignorance could therefore, at least to a degree, be a result of statist ignorance. Big Government statists seem to believe the State doesn’t have [much] influence in the marketplace, and anarcho-capitalists – taking the opposed view to these Big Government statists – seem to adopt that view.
I guess that proves the world isn’t black or white.
I used to identify myself as an anarcho-capitalist (while believing there is collution between big businesses and government; against intellectual property, and also the homesteading principle, ironically) because I did not interacted with other people identified themselves as anarcho-capitalists. I was confused with the negative connotations of the term thus I was critisized and I got offended by others for labeling me as a corporatist-loving nerd. But then I interacted and read some articles by self-identified anarcho-capitalists and got the negative connotations of the term so I switched to market anarchist.
Arguing and labeling people by ambiguous words, without defining them before the argument, is very childish. Some consider anarcho-capitalism a pure free market anarchist economy (such as myself), so I was confused.
Anarcho-capitalists who criticize big corporations and “existing capitalism” are treated as badly (if not worse) as those who cuddle up to them. That’s why sucking up to the left is a fool’s errand. It’s not the privileges or subsidies they hate, it’s the “voluntary” part.
Stephan Kinsella had it right on the LRC blog: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/011280.html
As far as semantics go: there is no reason to stop using the word “capitalism” just because it is associated with the current system. By that logic we should stop using the phrase “free market” as well, since most people consider the current system a “free market.” Obfuscating terminology in this fashion will only lead to further confusion.
Anarcho-capitalists who condemn big corporations and “existing capitalism” are treated just as badly (if not worse) than those who cuddle up to both. That’s why sucking up to the left is a fool’s errand. It’s not the privileges or subsidies they’re against: it’s the “voluntary” part.
Kinsella hit the nail on the head with this post
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/011280.html
Responding to “Cork,”
I agree that there is no use in totally giving up terms that have ambiguous meanings. The fact is that capitalism isn’t itself ambiguous – it means very distinct things. The problem is that it means distinctly different things depending on who you are talking to. What I say is simply that one has to realize what the words mean to the people listening – “know your audience.” I wouldn’t stop using term, but I propose stop using it ignorantly.
As for your other comments, I certainly disagree. I have no problem discussing respectfully with “leftist” anarchists, but I have to use the right kind of language. If one uses the exact same terms (except for maybe the word “capitalism”) when discussing with social anarchists as when discussing with only anarcho-capitalists you will have problems. The “left” is not attracted or impressed by the “economistic” vocabulary of the “right” – just like the “right” can’t stand the “emotional” vocabulary of the “left.” Realizing who you are talking to is important if you want to be understood rather than misunderstood.
As a matter of fact, if anarcho-capitalists would use a less “economistic” language when talking to fellow anarchists of the “left” they would be accepted and even respected. The problem is that they often make sure to talk about profits, capitalism (in the free market sense), and the black-or-white State vs. Market. Social anarchists aren’t very interested in who is powerful and an authority – they are more interested in power and authority no matter who is exercising it. Corporations exercise power too (which is mostly a result of government regulations and privileges) and therefore they are anti-corporations. Anarcho-capitalists should come to the same conclusion – anti-corporation – but basing it on the fact that it is not a result of the free market but of State regulations.
It is absolutely not the case that “leftist” anarchists are overall against “the ‘voluntary’ part.” They sometimes misunderstand and falsely identify the cause of power, which is why they do not always come to the same conclusions. But they are anarchists nevertheless and anarchism is necessarily voluntary.
@Per:
Right on. I think another thing to keep in mind that is that many still remember the cold war, a time where such illusory black/white thinking had a stronger hold on people. I think it’s going to take a good decade or two for much of the negative aspects of 20th century libertarian thinking to lose sway as people, ideas, etc. keep changing and evolving.
@Cork:
Anarcho-capitalists who criticize big corporations and “existing capitalism” are treated as badly (if not worse) as those who cuddle up to them.
That may be your experience. It ain’t mine. Peoples’ attempts to reach out to various non-libertarian segments of population will vary.
I suppose that those who aren’t very fluent in more left-libertarian thinking and are used to engaging with right-wing types may be perceived as somewhat phony or something, as if they’re not being genuine. Keep in mind various cultural and other perceptual differences between an average leftie and an average rightie.
That’s why sucking up to the left is a fool’s errand. It’s not the privileges or subsidies they hate, it’s the “voluntary” part.
Uh… you do realize that there are leftist anarchists, don’t you? Not all leftists are statist.
I’ve never “sucked up to the left”. I was leftist before I ever embraced the idea of a freed market. It’s not a game of pretend, or “sucking up” for me.
I’ve heard a similar line of thought from people like Anthony Gregory and BK Marcus, and I was bothered by it then as well. If you don’t feel comfortable discussing ideas with people you don’t relate to, then don’t “suck up” or play pretend. They’ll see right through you. Hell, I see through many awkward attempts by libertarians to appear leftish.
Some people just might be better off focusing their efforts on disgrunted conservatives and other rightie types. Fine. Stick to that, and leave leftist outreach to those who can understand, and even identify with, leftist concerns.
Kinsella’s comments were completely unpersuasive to me. For one thing, he kept referring to “liberals”, seemingly making the common mistake of treating liberals and leftists as one and the same. Secondly, he makes a sweeping generalization of “liberals” as hating industrialism and “progress” – a common smear from rightists that isn’t nearly as accurate as they’d like to think. I generally view his, and many of his LRC cohorts’, views on ecological issues to be rather embarrasing and repugnant.
I actually agree with your other comment concerning semantics. Their usage of the word capitalism wouldn’t really bother me – IF they were consistent with such usage. Defending their definition of capitalism as free enterprise one minute, and then championing capitalist China the next minute, is but one of many examples of the type of inconsistency that I referred to in my initial comment. It’s no wonder, at least to me, why many leftists have a hard time trusting the anti-corporatism of radical libertarians. Playing an anti-corporatist card can be perceived as rather disingenuous when it’s coming from people who worship Walmart, praise Chinese “free enterprise”, and condemn anyone concerned with ecological issues as “anti-business”, “anti-progress” or “anti-life”.
Very important message. There are many brands of anarchism, as defined by adherence to the nonagression principle and the belief that the state should be replaced by voluntary association. They differ mainly in terms of the property rules templates by which “aggressive” is distinguished from “defensive” force.
I’ve also seen many on the libertarian left who say they hate “markets,” while saying society should be governed entirely by voluntary relationships. I can only conclude that what they really hate is most of the people they’ve heard *talking* about the market their whole lives, and what they’ve heard falsely *called* the market.
“What I see amongst those who identify as “anarcho-capitalists” are people who essentially identify with the actually existing economic system – they generally LIKE the effects of statist distortion of markets.”
This, from someone who doesn’t like “sweeping generalizations.”
One day you will understand that it is not the “statist distortion of markets” the left-anarchists oppose (they love that stuff and demand more of it), it is the market itself.
“The fact is that capitalism isn’t itself ambiguous – it means very distinct things. The problem is that it means distinctly different things depending on who you are talking to.”
Both sides define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production (because that is its definition). Nobody who has read any left-anarchist text could possibly say otherwise.
“Uh… you do realize that there are leftist anarchists, don’t you? Not all leftists are statist.”
They demand the compulsory abolition of private property, which is statist.
This statement is not correct: “Property according to anarcho-capitalists is a right to use and control that which you have legitimately acquired – and this can only be done through directly mixing your own labor with that which is unowned and unused and unclaimed.” A person does not have to mix his labor with something to own it. He can simply purchase it.
Cork has posted similiar misunderstandings in response to my own blog posts from a left-libertarian market anarchist perspective. He does not understand that there can possibly be any reconciliation between the two sides and seems to think that all “left-anarchists” are just state-socialists in disguise. He also refuses to recognize that many of the so-called “right-anarchists” are functioning as apologists for the status quo, and are just corporatists and even monarchists in disguise (see Han Herman Hoppe). An anarchist without adjectives perspective is counter-intuit to most people.
“One day you will understand that it is not the “statist distortion of markets” the left-anarchists oppose (they love that stuff and demand more of it), it is the market itself.”
I consider myself a leftist and I completely support the market – not as it currently exists but as in the ideal of a free market. The problem is that many anarcho-capitalists end up defending markets and property titles as they are (which is not a free market at all) by falling back on a cold and dry utilitarian economic analysis divorced from any comprehensive concept of justice (a criticism that Rothbard himself made in “The Ethics of Liberty” – which I believe Kevin Carson is merely extending upon with his crticism of vulgar libertarianism). As a consequence, they function as neo-mercantalists or corporatists in actual fact. This is unfortunate.
“They demand the compulsory abolition of private property, which is statist.”
The problem is that the definition of private property is semantic with respect to the debate. It is my contention that even anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists actually support private property in some limited form, despite their protests to the contrary. They may make arbitrary distinctions between “personal property” and “private property” or between “property” and “possessions”, but at the end of the day they are advocating for some form of private ownership. Their societies would also have money substitutes, so their opposition to money is also based on a misunderstanding.
I can only speak to the ACs I’ve interacted with. Setting aside clear personality and communication conflicts, I think the reason for this is simple: to many, they appear to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. Capitalism is whatever is happening in the market that they approve of, and none of what they disapprove of. Which is fine, if they’re willing to be more thoughtful and exploratory and imaginative.
Here’s an example: ACs often highlight existing capitalist institutions as models from which they extrapolate proposed market-based alternatives to state-provided services. It’s not that this is necessarily bad; it’s just that because they generally agree with the power relationships outside government, they don’t have a lot of imagination about what’s possible. They appear to want the existing corporate capitalism without any sort of government, rather than a free market for its own sake.
The conclusion many draw is that you see anarchism as a means to, rather than alternative to, the current power relationships in society. I’m not saying that’s a correct conclusion; but given that you see left libertarians and other left anarchists doing *radical* work in alternative organizational ethics, you gotta admit that ACs don’t seem to be on the same page as us.
Agreeing on principles is great, but when we start talking about alternative institutions – what we build instead of what now exists – we often just don’t see eye to eye. It’s often framed as a difference of cultural preference or bias, but I think it’s usually more than that. We disagree on our predictions of the likely anarchist world, without realizing that we could both be right, or both be wrong. And so ideological identities interfere.
Jeremy, my guess is that you have not read a lot of MA materials or read about MA societies in the past. There is a wide diversity of market processes that can be used in any given society.
As for the radical work, we mostly support it, as long as it goes in the Anarchist direction. We are still too few and too dispersed to join you guys yet, but believe me I am itching for some action.
“Capitalism is whatever is happening in the market that they approve of, and none of what they disapprove of.”
The thing is, it’s pretty difficult to tell what would be around and what wouldn’t. Critics of ancap are flaunting their predictions as fact just as much as some ancaps are. Many ancaps don’t see the point in condemning every single business transaction that exists just because we don’t live in a free market, just as left-anarchists never seem to condemn unions or worker cooperatives (regardless of the statist conditions around them).
“They appear to want the existing corporate capitalism without any sort of government, rather than a free market for its own sake.”
Some do, some don’t, some don’t care either way.
My personal opinion is that capitalist corporations (or similar structures) would definitely continue to exist, unless forcefully suppressed. I don’t think people are going to give up their mutual funds without one hell of a fight.
“He does not understand that there can possibly be any reconciliation between the two sides and seems to think that all “left-anarchists” are just state-socialists in disguise.”
You guys are so naive about left-anarchism, it’s just unbelievable. It is clear that not a single one of you have ever read Bookchin or Kropotkin or Goldman or any other left-anarchist author. Read up on what they think of private property and get back to me.
“He also refuses to recognize that many of the so-called “right-anarchists” are functioning as apologists for the status quo, and are just corporatists and even monarchists in disguise (see Han Herman Hoppe).”
I never “refused to recognize” this at all. I have said that ‘vulgar libertarianism’ is a problem, but that it has turned into a witch-hunt and that the term is misused by many (to the detriment of Carson’s original point).
Certainly, but I think because we reject not just the involvement of the state but also the more subtle power relationships that stem from it, we have different tolerances. For example, in a non-corporatist economy, maybe unions wouldn’t need to exist at all, and therefore the question is moot. However, while capital is artificially concentrated via privilege, unions are not the first to go for a left libertarian because they embody organizational principles that, while imperfectly realized, provide a real alternative to hierarchical corporatism.
There is a huge issue here of organizational ethics: the question, not of “how do you want people not to relate to each other”, but rather how you DO want them to relate. So what organizations exist because of the state, what orgs exist in spite of the state, and what orgs don’t exist at all because of the state are all very pertinent questions. There’s a lot of room for opinion here, and ACs just don’t seem to be too curious about the possibilities because they seem pretty cool with hierarchy for its own sake.
That’s the perception, at least – it’s not necessarily accurate.
Jeremy, my guess is that you have not read a lot of MA materials.
I did a blog about criticising the definitions of anarchist semantics.
http://anarcho-freemarketeerism.blogspot.com/2008/07/everyone-should-keep-their-full-fruits.html