Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

This article discusses how anarcho-capitalism compares and contrasts to other forms of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is a subject of frequent, heavy, and detailed dispute . Historically, anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism. Many anarchists maintain strongly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe anarchism to be necessarily anti-capitalist as well as anti-statist. They note that "anarchy" means "without rulers", rather than "without the State", and they argue that capitalism is characterized by such authoritative structures. Some anarcho-capitalists, however, argue that "anarchism" refers exclusively to anti-statism.

Capitalism and anarcho-capitalism

Hierarchy

Communist anarchists oppose "hierarchy." Most anarchists do not deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. They also argue that the system of wage labour, and hence capitalism, is unanarchist, authoritarian, and coercive in nature. 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..

Most anarchists oppose the clear class distinction between labourers and employers in capitalism. For example, the social anarchist writers of "An Anarchist FAQ", 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"..

Individualist anarchists do not state an opposition to "hierarchy." Individualist anarchists 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, Lysander Spooner wanted to maximize self-employment "either singly, or in partnerships" , and advocated that everyone should labor to receive an income. Benjamin Tucker 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". 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".

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 "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." 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. The argument thus has the same substance as the wider dispute between liberalism and socialism 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 Lysander Spooner favored it,, but most including Tucker, argue for an "occupancy and use" system of possession (as suggested by Proudhon's mutualism).

Though the modern form of anarcho-capitalism did not exist in Tucker's day, there was a similar philosophy called voluntaryism popularized by Auberon Herbert. Tucker criticized Herbert's support of profit, but believed that Herbert's anti-statism would nevertheless result in a profitless economy.. 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." 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". Similarly, Rothbard supports voluntarily-funded private defense and defines "anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']" and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion."

end npov section

According to some, such as The Anarchist International, capitalism is an economic plutocracy that includes its own hierarchy. They place anarcho-capitalism outside of the anarchist movement, and into the classical liberal tradition: "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. For example, American individualist anarchism is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism." 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 labor theory of value which they put forth as a basis for claiming that profit is exploitative. While classical capitalists such as Adam Smith also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, espouse a subjective theory of value and marginalism - 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 exploitive 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.

Reconciling views on anarchism

Some anarcho-capitalists argue that their philosophy is related to American individualist anarchism. They believe a major difficulty in resolving the debate is due to the conflicting definitions of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism" 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 anti-statist and anti-capitalist. Conversely, libertarians 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). However, even this is disputed, as many anarchists argue that capitalism is inherently 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." Likewise, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists refered to "capitalism" they meant state capitalism, the alliance of government and business. 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 Kevin A. Carson from mutualist.org 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.

See also

• Anarchism
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Anarchism and capitalism
• Capitalism

External links

• Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? - An Anarchist FAQ hosted by Infoshop.org written by a (virtual) working group