| |
| |
Anarchism, Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism
The Internet, as well as printed anarchist media, covers an extensive library of
argumentative essays on the oxymoron of anarcho-capitalism and why this
political tradition needs to be refuted. Anarchism is by necessity opposing the
exploitative system of capitalism, in the same way anarchism opposes the
authoritative, exploitative, and coercive structures of the church and the
government or the State.
This argumentation usually begins with the history of
anarchism and its obvious socialist heritage. The “father” of anarchism,
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, was in essence socialist and sought a society based on
equality and freedom. As for his and the anarchists opposition to capitalism he
stated that “[w]e do not admit the government of man by man any more than the
exploitation of man by man.” [1]
The identification of anarchism as a socialist movement is
echoed by proponents of the later schools of anarchism, such as
anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin and individualist anarchist Benjamin R.
Tucker. The former defined anarchism as “the no-government form of socialism”
while the latter called for anarchism as “the abolition of the State and the
abolition of usury.” [ibid]
These quotes show the history of anarchism as a socialist
movement. It can therefore be claimed that anarcho-capitalism inevitably is an
oxymoron--with no real ties to the general anarchist tradition. Anarchism “has
always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally
critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state.”
[2] How can one from this historical heritage claim to be both
anarchist and advocate of the exploitative system of capitalism? The truth is
that no one can, and no one does. There are no anarchists
approving of such a system, even anarcho-capitalists (for the most part) do
not.
This unfortunate situation of fundamental misinterpretation
of anarcho-capitalism (and other political movements) originates from the
confusion in definitions of terms and concepts. Anarchism as a term has two
specific meanings which have nothing in common: it is both a political movement
seeking a free society without rule, and at the same time a term describing
chaos and disorder. In the anarchist political movement only the first
definition of the concept is used, while the general public usually refers to
the second when using the term “anarchism.” Just as anarchism is a confusing
concept, so can other concepts have different meaning depending on the context
and people using the term.
One may argue about which definition of a certain term is the
correct and which should be abolished, but this approach is rather misplaced.
Instead of arguing that most people in the world should abandon the “chaos,
disorder” definition of anarchism one should advance the ideals of the
anarchist political movement. This is the only rational and effective approach
to this confusion--the term is not what is important, but the ideals, ideas,
and values the anarchist movement associates with the term.
Capitalism in the sense of wealth accumulation as a result of
oppressive and exploitative wage slavery must be abandoned. The enormous
differences between the wealthy and the poor do not only cause tensions in
society or personal harm to those exploited, but is essentially unjust. Most,
if not all, property of today is generated and amassed through the use of
force. This cannot be accepted, and no anarchists accept this state of
inequality and injustice.
As a matter of fact, anarcho-capitalists share this view with
other anarchists. Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of
anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property
and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights.”
[3] The starting point of Rothbard’s argumentation is
every man’s sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the
position of property creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals,
and is also the shared position of anarchists of different colors. Even the
statist capitalist libertarian Robert Nozick claimed contemporary property was
unjustly accrued and that a free society, to him a “minimalist state,” needs to
make up with this injustice. [4]
Thus it seems anarcho-capitalists agree with Proudhon in that
“property is theft,” where it is acquired in an illegitimate manner. But they
also agree with Proudhon in that “property is liberty”
[5] in the sense that without property, i.e. being robbed of the fruits
of one’s actions, one is a slave. Anarcho-capitalists thus advocate the freedom
of a stateless society, where each individual has the sovereign right to his
body and labor and through this right can pursue his or her own definition of
happiness.
As we can see, the exploitative, force- and rule-based system
of capitalism is not championed by any anarchists, not even the
anarcho-capitalists. The critique directed from the leftist camps of anarchism
towards anarcho-capitalism is therefore misplaced, inaccurate and rather
ignorant. To refute the ideas and values of a philosophical movement one will
have to use their definitions, or the critique will be virtually worthless.
Anarcho-capitalism is thus not the oxymoron many anarchists
claim it to be. The term “capitalism” is here rather used in a way of
emphasizing the importance people of this movement put in the creation of value
in the free market. This position of advocating the free market without
interference is shared by individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and
Benjamin R. Tucker, of whom the latter demanded that interferences with the
free market must be abolished. As Tucker claimed, “if a man has labor to sell,
he has a right to a free market in which to sell it.”
[6]
It may seem as an unproductive and confusing way of using
such a widely discussed and refuted concept as “capitalism” in the anarchist
movement--there must be other terms more suitable for these ideals. Actually,
anarcho-capitalists rather often refer to themselves as contractists or voluntaryists
to stress the fact that they disapprove of any coercive or force-based measures
and champion a society where every individual is free to arrange his or her
life as seen fit.
But on the other hand, there are a number of such seemingly
contradictory constructions of specific anarchist ideals. The anarchist
position to oppose the powers of religion, perhaps as opium of the people, and
the church seems to be contested by anarcho-christians. And anarcho-socialists
use the term “socialism,” which originally was defined as a theory advocating
state ownership and administration of the means of production.
[7] The combined terms seemingly create an inherent conflict,
which in reality is nonexistent.
As we can see, anarcho-capitalism is not different from
anarchisms in the refusal of exploitative capitalism. But there are of course
differences which need to be stressed and discussed, as is the case with every
anarchist “branch” using their own label. Anarcho-capitalism puts great value
into the freedom of each individual to be involved in the free market and take
part in voluntary, mutual agreements for one’s own benefit.
[8]
Anarcho-capitalists as most anarchists agree with Tucker in
that “[l]iberty 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.” [9]
| Notes: |
| [1] |
Quoted
by Peter Marshall in Demanding the Impossible, p. 245 [back] |
| [2] |
From
Brian Morris’ “Anthropology and Anarchism” in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed
no. 45, p. 40 [back] |
| [3] |
See
Murray N. Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty” [back] |
| [4] |
See
Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, Utopia” [back] |
| [5] |
See
Albert Meltzer’s short analysis of Proudhon’s “property is liberty” in
Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 12-13 [back] |
| [6] |
See
“Strikes and Force” in Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of
Benjamin R. Tucker [back] |
| [7] |
See
most dictionary definitions or e.g. the many works of Karl Marx
[back] |
| [8] |
For
a discussion on the free market and voluntary agreements please see the essay
Anarchism, Barter Trade and the Market [back] |
| [9] |
Quoted
by Eunice Schuster in Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American
Individualism, p. 140 [back] |
Subscribe to the PerBylund.com Update! Subscribers receive a short e-mail message every time one of Per Bylund’s columns is published, with a synopsis and link.
Subscribe here: www.PerBylund.com/notifier/?p=subscribe
|
|
|
|
|
|