Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!faqserv
From: bcaplan@gmu.edu (Bryan Caplan)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.answers,talk.answers,news.answers
Subject: Comparative Anarchist Theory FAQ Version 5.2
Supersedes:
Followup-To: poster
Date: 13 Feb 1998 11:48:10 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 2708
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.EDU
Expires: 29 Mar 1998 11:46:43 GMT
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: penguin-lust.mit.edu
Summary: This FAQ discusses anarchist theory, with a strong emphasis
upon the many Net controversies between left-anarchists and
anarcho-capitalists.
X-Last-Updated: 1997/09/11
Originator: faqserv@penguin-lust.MIT.EDU
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu alt.society.anarchy:75548 alt.anarchism:34155 talk.politics.theory:185336 alt.politics.economics:126043 alt.politics.libertarian:364566 alt.individualism:62216 alt.philosophy.objectivism:175593 talk.politics.libertarian:286044 alt.politics.radical-left:219241 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:46944 alt.answers:32097 talk.answers:2747 news.answers:123113
Archive-name: anarchy/theory/faq
Posting-Frequency: monthly
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a slightly revised version of my FAQ on anarchist theory. As
always, comments, criticisms, and corrections will be much appreciated. In
particular, if you think that any argument or viewpoint has been presented
weakly or inadequately, please write me at bcaplan@gmu.edu to
discuss your preferred formulation.
To view the hypertext version of the FAQ (so the links work), go to
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchist Theory FAQ
or
Instead of a FAQ, by a Man Too Busy to Write One
by
Bryan Caplan
Version 5.2
I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which
governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more
rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to
this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which
governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that
will be the kind of government which they will have.
--Henry David Thoreau,
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to
leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not
only different, but have different origins ... Society is in
every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
--Thomas Paine,
Common Sense
They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship -- their
dictatorship, of course -- can create the will of the people,
while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other
aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery
in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by
freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the
people and free organization of the toiling masses from the
bottom up.
--Mikhail Bakunin,
Statism and Anarchism
In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for
evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by
demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is
impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish
roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in
those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of
them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin
more politeness upon the park-keepers." If there is stagnation in
agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle-breeder, or corn-
speculator argues, "It is protective legislation which we
require." Down to the old clothesman there is not one who does
not demand a law to protect his own little trade. If the employer
lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in
embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights."
In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about
fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put
a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human
indolence and cowardice.
--Peter Kropotkin,
"Law and Authority"
[W]hoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts,
viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a
"government" (so called) puts into its hands a sword which will
be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also
to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those
who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place,
will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he
presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a
perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take
a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they
profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why
should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do
so?... 4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make
his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him,
in order to "protect" him against his will. 5. That the only
security men can have for their political liberty, consists in
their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have
assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be
used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for
their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be
trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest
purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon
voluntary support.
--Lysander Spooner,
No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority
If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and
tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need
not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom.
--Murray Rothbard,
For a New Liberty
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
1. What is anarchism? What beliefs do anarchists share?
2. Why should one consider anarchism in the first place?
3. Don't anarchists favor chaos?
4. Don't anarchists favor the abolition of the family, property,
religion, and other social institutions besides the state?
5. What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?
6. Is anarchism the same thing as libertarianism?
7. Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
8. Who are the major anarchist thinkers?
9. How would left-anarchy work?
10. How would anarcho-capitalism work?
11. What criticisms have been made of anarchism?
a. "An anarchist society, lacking any central coercive authority,
would quickly degenerate into violent chaos."
b. The Marxist critique of left-anarchism
c. The minarchists' attack on anarcho-capitalism
d. The conservative critique of anarchism
e. "We are already in a state of anarchy."
12. What other anarchist viewpoints are there?
13. What moral justifications have been offered for anarchism?
14. What are the major debates between anarchists? What are the recurring
arguments?
a. "X is not 'true anarchism.'"
b. "Anarchism of variant X is unstable and will lead to the
re-emergence of the state."
c. "In an anarchist society in which both systems X and Y existed, X
would inevitably outcompete Y."
d. "Anarchism of type X would be worse than the state."
e. Etc.
15. How would anarchists handle the "public goods" problem?
a. The concept and uses of Pareto optimality in economics
b. The public goods problem
16. Are anarchists pacifists?
a. Tolstoyan absolute pacifism
b. Pacifism as opposition to war
17. Have there been any historical examples of anarchist societies?
18. Isn't anarchism utopian?
19. Don't anarchists assume that all people are innately virtuous?
20. Aren't anarchists terrorists?
21. How might an anarchist society be achieved?
22. What are some addresses for anarchist World Wide Web sites?
23. What are some major anarchist writings?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What is anarchism? What beliefs do anarchists share?
Anarchism is defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary
as "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are
unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be
abolished." Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing,
namely government, is bad and should be abolished. Aside from
this defining tenet, it would be difficult to list any belief
that all anarchists hold. Just as atheists might support or
oppose any viewpoint consistent with the non-existence of God,
anarchists might and indeed do hold the entire range of
viewpoints consistent with the non-existence of the state.
As might be expected, different groups of anarchists are
constantly trying to define anarchists with different views out
of existence, just as many Christians say that their sect is the
only "true" Christianity and many socialists say that their
socialism is the only "true" socialism. This FAQ takes what seems
to me to be the impartial view that such tactics are pointless
and merely prevent the debate of substantive issues. (N.B. The
preceding definition has been criticized a number of times. To
view my appendix on Defining Anarchism, click here.)
2. Why should one consider anarchism in the first place?
Unlike many observers of history, anarchists see a common thread
behind most of mankind's problems: the state. In the 20th-century
alone, states have murdered well over 100,000,000 human beings,
whether in war, concentration camps, or man-made famine. And this
is merely a continuation of a seemingly endless historical
pattern: almost from the beginning of recorded history,
governments have existed. Once they arose, they allowed a ruling
class to live off the labor of the mass of ordinary people; and
these ruling classes have generally used their ill-gotten gains
to build armies and wage war to extend their sphere of influence.
At the same time, governments have always suppressed unpopular
minorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators
to raise humanity to new intellectual, moral, cultural, and
economic heights. By transferring surplus wealth from producers
to the state's ruling elite, the state has often strangled any
incentive for long-run economic growth and thus stifled
humanity's ascent from poverty; and at the same time the state
has always used that surplus wealth to cement its power.
If the state is the proximate cause of so much needless misery
and cruelty, would it not be desirable to investigate the
alternatives? Perhaps the state is a necessary evil which we
cannot eliminate. But perhaps it is rather an unnecessary evil
which we accept out of inertia when a totally different sort of
society would be a great improvement.
3. Don't anarchists favor chaos?
By definition, anarchists oppose merely government, not order or
society. "Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order" wrote
Proudhon, and most anarchists would be inclined to agree.
Normally, anarchists demand abolition of the state because they
think that they have something better to offer, not out of a
desire for rebellion as such. Or as Kropotkin put it, "No
destruction of the existing order is possible, if at the time of
the overthrow, or of the struggle leading to the overthrow, the
idea of what is to take the place of what is to be destroyed is
not always present in the mind. Even the theoretical criticism of
the existing conditions is impossible, unless the critic has in
mind a more or less distinct picture of what he would have in
place of the existing state. Consciously or unconsciously, the
ideal, the conception of something better is forming in the mind
of everyone who criticizes social institutions."
There is an anti-intellectual strain in anarchism which favors
chaos and destruction as an end-in-itself. While possibly a
majority among people who have called themselves anarchists, this
is not a prominent strand of thought among those who have
actually spent time thinking and writing about anarchist theory.
4. Don't anarchists favor the abolition of the family, property,
religion, and other social institutions besides the state?
Some anarchists have favored the abolition of one or more of the
above, while others have not. To some, all of these are merely
other forms of oppression and domination. To others, they are the
vital intermediary institutions which protect us from the state.
To still others, some of the above are good and others are bad;
or perhaps they are bad currently, but merit reform.
5. What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?
As should become plain to the reader of alt.society.anarchy or
alt.anarchism, there are two rather divergent lines of anarchist
thought. The first is broadly known as "left-anarchism," and
encompasses anarcho-socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and
anarcho-communists. These anarchists believe that in an anarchist
society, people either would or should abandon or greatly reduce
the role of private property rights. The economic system would be
organized around cooperatives, worker-owned firms, and/or
communes. A key value in this line of anarchist thought is
egalitarianism, the view that inequalities, especially of wealth
and power, are undesirable, immoral, and socially contingent.
The second is broadly known as "anarcho-capitalism." These
anarchists believe that in an anarchist society, people either
would or should not only retain private property, but expand it
to encompass the entire social realm. No anarcho-capitalist has
ever denied the right of people to voluntarily pool their private
property and form a cooperative, worker-owned firm, or commune;
but they also believe that several property, including such
organizations as corporations, are not only perfectly legitimate
but likely to be the predominant form of economic organization
under anarchism. Unlike the left-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists
generally place little or no value on equality, believing that
inequalities along all dimensions -- including income and wealth
-- are not only perfectly legitimate so long as they "come about
in the right way," but are the natural consequence of human
freedom.
A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely skeptical about
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
to maintain this claim. In Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A
History of Ideas and Movements (published in 1959 before any
important modern anarcho-capitalist works had been written), this
great socialist historian notes that:
To be sure, there is a difference between
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists also
do not acknowledge any right to society to force the
individual. They differ from the anarchistic
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
property which is maintained through the power of the
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
individual independence, without fully answering the
question of how property could be maintained without
courts and police.
Actually, Tucker and Spooner both wrote about the free market's
ability to provide legal and protection services, so Landauer's
remark was not accurate even in 1959. But the interesting point
is that before the emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism
Landauer found it necessary to distinguish two strands of
anarchism, only one of which he considered to be within the broad
socialist tradition.
6. Is anarchism the same thing as libertarianism?
This is actually a complicated question, because the term
"libertarianism" itself has two very different meanings. In
Europe in the 19th-century, libertarianism was a popular
euphemism for left-anarchism. However, the term did not really
catch on in the United States.
After World War II, many American-based pro-free-market
intellectuals opposed to traditional conservatism were seeking
for a label to describe their position, and eventually picked
"libertarianism." ("Classical liberalism" and "market liberalism"
are alternative labels for the same essential position.) The
result was that in two different political cultures which rarely
communicated with one another, the term "libertarian" was used in
two very different ways. At the current time, the American use
has basically taken over completely in academic political theory
(probably owing to Nozick's influence), but the European use is
still popular among many left-anarchist activists in both Europe
and the U.S.
The semantic confusion was complicated further when some of the
early post-war American libertarians determined that the logical
implication of their view was, in fact, a variant of anarchism.
They adopted the term "anarcho-capitalism" to differentiate
themselves from more moderate libertarianism, but were still
generally happy to identify themselves with the broader
free-market libertarian movement.
7. Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- "advocacy
of government ownership of the means of production" -- it seems
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as "advocacy of
the strong restriction or abolition of private property," then
the question becomes more complex.
Under the second proffered definition, some anarchists are
socialists, but others are not. Outside of the Anglo- American
political culture, there has been a long and close historical
relationship between the more orthodox socialists who advocate a
socialist government, and the anarchist socialists who desire
some sort of decentralized, voluntary socialism. The two groups
both want to severely limit or abolish private property and thus
both groups fit the second definition of socialism. However, the
anarchists certainly do not want the government to own the means
of production, for they don't want government to exist in the
first place.
The anarchists' dispute with the traditional socialists -- a
dispute best illustrated by the bitter struggle between Karl Marx
and Mikhail Bakunin for dominance in the 19th-century European
workers' movement -- has often be described as a disagreement
over "means." On this interpretation, the socialist anarchists
and the state-socialists agree that a communal and egalitarian
society is desirable, but accuse one another of proposing
ineffective means of attaining it. However, this probably
understates the conflict, which is also over more fundamental
values: socialist anarchists emphasize the need for autonomy and
the evils of authoritarianism, while traditional socialists have
frequently belittled such concerns as "bourgeois."
When we turn to the Anglo-American political culture, the
story is quite different. Virulent anti-socialist
anarchism is much more common there, and has been from the early
19th-century. Great Britain was the home of many intensely
anti-socialist quasi-anarchistic thinkers of the 19th-century
such as Auberon Herbert and the early Herbert Spencer. The United
States has been an even more fertile ground for individualist
anarchism: during the 19th-century, such figures as Josiah
Warren, Lysander Spooner , and Benjamin Tucker gained prominence
for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom of contract
and private property. And in the 20th-century, thinkers residing
within the United States have been the primary developers and
exporters of anarcho-capitalist theory.
Still, this geographic division should not be over-stated. The
French anarchist Proudhon and the German Max Stirner both
embraced modified forms of individualism; a number of
left-anarchists (often European immigrants) attained prominence
in the United States; and Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin, two
of the most influential theorists of modern left-anarchism, both
reside within the United States.
8. Who are the major anarchist thinkers?
The most famous left-anarchists have probably been
Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Pierre Proudhon is
also often included although his ideas on the desirability of a
modified form of private property would lead some to exclude him
from the leftist camp altogether. (Some of Proudhon's other
heterodoxies include his defense of the right of inheritance and
his emphasis on the genuine antagonism between state power and
property rights.) More recent left-anarchists include Emma
Goldman, Murray Bookchin , and Noam Chomsky.
Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption, but
overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
common with anarcho-capitalists than with
left-anarchists.)
More comprehensive listings of anarchist figures may be found in
a number of broad historical works listed later in the FAQ.
9. How would left-anarchy work?
There are many different views on this. Among left- anarchists,
there are some who imagine returning to a much simpler, even
pre-industrial, mode of social organization. Others seem to
intend to maintain modern technology and civilization (perhaps in
a more environmentally sound manner) but end private ownership of
the means of production.
To be replaced with what? Various suggestions have been made.
Existing firms might simply be turned over to worker ownership,
and then be subject to the democratic control of the workers.
This is the anarcho-syndicalist picture: keeping an economy based
upon a multitude of firms, but with firms owned and managed by
the workers at each firm. Presumably firms would then strike
deals with one another to secure needed materials; or perhaps
firms would continue to pay money wages and sell products to
consumers. It is unclear how the syndicalist intends to arrange
for the egalitarian care of the needy, or the provision of
necessary but unprofitable products. Perhaps it is supposed that
syndicates would contribute out of social responsibility; others
have suggested that firms would elect representatives for a
larger meta-firm organization which would carry out the necessary
tasks.
It should be noted that Tom Wetzel disputes my characterization
of anarcho-syndicalism; he argues that very few
anarcho-syndicalists ever imagined that workers would simply take
over their firms, while maintaining the basic features of the
market economy. Rather, the goal has usually been the
establishment of an overarching democratic structure, rather than
a multitude of uncoordinated firm-centered democracies. Or at
Wetzel states, "Anarcho-syndicalism advocates the development of
a mass workers' movement based on direct democracy as the vehicle
for reorganization of the society on the basis of direct workers'
collective power over social production, thus eliminating the
domination and exploitation of the producing class by an
exploiting class. Workers cannot have collective power over the
system of social production as isolated groups competing in a
market economy; rather, workers self- management requires
structures of democratic control over social production and
public affairs generally. Workers' self- management thus refers,
not just to self-management of the individual workplace, but of
the whole system of social production. This requires grassroots
bodies, such as workers' congresses or conventions, through which
coordinated policies for the society can be developed in a
democratic manner. This is proposed as a substitute or
replacement for the historical nation-state." On this
interpretation of anarcho-syndicalism, the revolutionary trade
unions are a means for achieving an anarchist society, rather
than a proposed basis for social organization under anarchy.
Many would observe that there is nothing anarchistic about this
proposal; indeed, names aside, it fits easily into the orthodox
state-socialist tradition. Bakunin would have probably ridiculed
such ideas as authoritarian Marxist socialism in disguise, and
predicted that the leading anarchist revolutionaries would
swiftly become the new despots. But Wetzel is perhaps right that
many or even most historical anarcho-syndicalists were
championing the system outlined in his preceding quotation. He
goes on to add that "[I]f you look at the concept of 'state' in
the very abstract way it often is in the social sciences, as in
Weber's definition, then what the anarcho-syndicalists were
proposing is not elimination of the state or government, but its
radical democratization. That was not how anarchists themselves
spoke about it, but it can be plausibly argued that this is a
logical consequence of a certain major stream of left-anarchist
thought."
Ronald Fraser's discussion of the ideology of the Spanish
Anarchists (historically the largest European anarchist movement)
strongly undermines Wetzel's claim, however. There were two
well-developed lines of thought, both of which favored the
abolition of the State in the broad Weberian sense of the word,
and which did indeed believe that the workers should literally
have control over their workplaces. After distinguishing the
rural and the urban tendencies among the Spanish ideologists,
Fraser explains:
Common to both tendencies was the idea that the working
class 'simply' took over factories and workplaces and
ran them collectively but otherwise as before...
Underlying this vision of simple continuity was the
anarcho-syndicalist concept of the revolution not as a
rupture with, the destruction and replacement of, the
bourgeois order but as the latter's displacement. The
taking over of factories and workplaces, however
violently carried out, was not the beginning of the
revolution to create a new order but its final goal.
This view, in turn was conditioned by a particular view
of the state. Any state (bourgeois or working class)
was considered an oppressive power tout court - not as
the organization of a particular class's coercive
power. The 'state' in consequence, rather than the
existence of the capitalist mode of production which
gave rise to its particular form, often appeared as the
major enemy. The state did not have to be taken,
crushed, and a new - revolutionary - power established.
No. If it could be swept away, abolished, everything
else, including oppression, disappeared. The capitalist
order was simply displaced by the new-won workers'
freedom to administer the workplaces they had taken
over. Self-organized in autonomous communes or in
all-powerful syndicates, the workers, as the primary
factor in production, dispensed with the bourgeoisie.
The consequences of this were seen in the 1936
Barcelona revolution; capitalist production and market
relations continued to exist within collectivized
industry.
Overall, the syndicalist is probably the best elaborated of the
left-anarchist systems. But others in the broader tradition
imagine individuals forming communes and cooperatives which would
be less specialized and more self- sufficient than the typical
one-product-line anarcho- syndicalist firm. These notions are
often closely linked to the idea of creating a more
environmentally sound society, in which small and decentralized
collectives redirect their energies towards a Greener way of
life.
Many left-anarchists and anarchist sympathizers have also been
attracted to Guild Socialism in one form or another. Economist
Roger A. McCain thoughtfully explores Guild Socialism as an
alternative to both capitalism and the state in "Guild Socialism
Reconsidered," one of his working papers. To view it, click here.
Kropotkin's lucid essay "Law and Authority" gives a
thoughtful presentation of the left-anarchist's view of
law. Primitive human societies, explains Kropotkin, live by what
legal thinkers call "customary law": an unwritten but broadly
understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up
primarily by social pressure. Kropotkin considers this sort of
behavioral regulation to be unobjectionable, and probably
consistent with his envisaged anarchist society. But when
centralized governments codified customary law, they mingled the
sensible dictates of tribal conscience with governmental
sanctions for exploitation and injustice. As Kropotkin writes,
"[L]egislators confounded in one code the two currents of custom
... the maxims which represent principles of morality and social
union wrought out as a result of life in common, and the mandates
which are meant to ensure external existence to inequality.
Customs, absolutely essential to the very being of society, are,
in the code, cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the
ruling caste, and both claim equal respect from the crowd. 'Do
not kill,' says the code, and hastens to add, 'And pay tithes to
the priest.' 'Do not steal,' says the code, and immediately
after, 'He who refuses to pay taxes, shall have his hand struck
off.'"
So perhaps Kropotkin's ideal society would live under the
guidance of a reformed customary law stripped of the class
legislation with which it is now so closely associated. But
Kropotkin continues to give what appear to be arguments against
even customary law prohibiting e.g. murder. Almost all violent
crime is actually caused by poverty and inequality created by
existing law. A small residual of violent crime might persist,
but efforts to handle it by legal channels are futile. Why?
Because punishment has no effect on crime, especially such crimes
of passion as would survive the abolition of private property.
Moreover, criminals should not be judged wicked, but rather
treated as we now treat the sick and disadvantaged.
Most left-anarchists probably hold to a mix of Kropotkin's fairly
distinct positions on law and crime. Existing law should be
replaced by sensible and communitarian customs; and the critic of
anarchism underestimates the extent to which existing crime is in
fact a product of the legal system's perpetuation of inequality
and poverty. And since punishment is not an effective deterrent,
and criminals are not ultimately responsible for their misdeeds,
a strictly enforced legal code may be undesirable anyway.
Some other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are
quite unclear. Whether dissidents who despised all forms of
communal living would be permitted to set up their own
inegalitarian separatist societies is rarely touched upon.
Occasionally left-anarchists have insisted that small farmers and
the like would not be forcibly collectivized, but the limits of
the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian way of life are
rarely specified.
10. How would anarcho-capitalism work?
Most of the prominent anarcho-capitalist writers have been
academic economists, and as such have felt it necessary to spell
out the workings of their preferred society in rather greater
detail than the left-anarchists have. In order to best grasp the
anarcho-capitalist position, it is helpful to realize that
anarcho-capitalists have emerged almost entirely out of the
modern American libertarian movement, and believe that their view
is simply a slightly more extreme version of the libertarianism
propounded by e.g. Robert Nozick.
FAQs on the broader libertarian movement are widely
available on the Net, so we will only give the necessary
background here. So-called "minarchist" libertarians such as
Nozick have argued that the largest justified government was one
which was limited to the protection of individuals and their
private property against physical invasion; accordingly, they
favor a government limited to supplying police, courts, a legal
code, and national defense. This normative theory is closely
linked to laissez-faire economic theory, according to which
private property and unregulated competition generally lead to
both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly)
a high rate of economic progress. While left-anarchists are often
hostile to "bourgeois economics," anarcho-capitalists hold
classical economists such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and
Jean-Baptiste Say in high regard, as well as more modern
economists such as Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises, F.A.
Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and James Buchanan. The
problem with free-market economists, say the anarcho-capitalists,
is not that they defend the free market, but merely that their
defense is too moderate and compromising.
(Note however that the left-anarchists' low opinion of
the famous "free-market economists" is not monolithic:
Noam Chomsky in particular has repeatedly praised some of the
political insights of Adam Smith. And Peter Kropotkin also had
good things to say about Smith as both social scientist and
moralist; Conal Smith explains that "In particular he approved of
Smith's attempt to apply the scientific method to the study of
morals and society, his critique of the state in The Wealth of
Nations, and his theory of human sociability in The Theory of
Moral Sentiments.")
Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own
logic against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the
state could not be turned over to the free market. And so, the
anarcho-capitalist imagines that police services could be sold by
freely competitive firms; that a court system would emerge to
peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible
legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and
contract. And in fact, notes the anarcho-capitalist, a great deal
of modern law (such as the Anglo-American common law) originated
not in legislatures, but from the decentralized rulings of
judges. (The anarcho-capitalist shares Kropotkin's interest in
customary law, but normally believes that it requires extensive
modernization and articulation.)
The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's
increasing reliance on private security guards, gated
communities, arbitration and mediation, and other demonstrations
of the free market's ability to supply the defensive and legal
services normally assumed to be of necessity a government
monopoly. In his ideal society, these market alternatives to
government services would take over all legitimate security
services. One plausible market structure would involve
individuals subscribing to one of a large number of competing
police services; these police services would then set up
contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between
members of each others' agencies. Alternately, police services
might be "bundled" with housing services, just as landlords often
bundle water and power with rental housing, and gardening and
security are today provided to residents in gated communities and
apartment complexes.
The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private
police would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect
individual rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully
arbitrate will yield to jointly destructive warfare, which will
be bad for profits. Second, firms will want to develop long- term
business relationships, and hence be willing to negotiate in good
faith to insure their long-term profitability. And third,
aggressive firms would be likely to attract only high-risk
clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs (a
problem parallel to the well-known "adverse selection problem" in
e.g. medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people
are especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the
price when riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if
regulation requires a uniform price regardless of risk).
Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view
that their "private police agencies" would be equivalent to
today's Mafia -- the cost advantages of open, legitimate business
would make "criminal police" uncompetitive. As David Friedman
explains in The Machinery of Freedom, "Perhaps the best way to
see why anarcho-capitalism would be so much more peaceful than
our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would
be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero.
Everyone lives in a housetrailer and speaks the same language.
One day, the president of France announces that because of
troubles with neighboring countries, new military taxes are being
levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the
president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty
landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three
generals, and twenty-seven war correspondents."
(Moreover, anarcho-capitalists argue, the Mafia can only thrive
in the artificial market niche created by the prohibition of
alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other victimless
crimes. Mafia gangs might kill each other over turf, but
liquor-store owners generally do not.)
Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no
objection to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim
that punishment does not deter crime to be the height of naivete.
Traditional punishment might be meted out after a conviction by a
neutral arbitrator; or a system of monetary restitution (probably
in conjunction with a prison factory system) might exist instead.
A convicted criminal would owe his victim compensation, and would
be forced to work until he paid off his debt. Overall,
anarcho-capitalists probably lean more towards the
restitutionalist rather than the pure retributivist position.
Probably the main division between the
anarcho-capitalists stems from the apparent differences
between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David Friedman's
more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the
need for a generally recognized libertarian legal code (which he
thinks could be developed fairly easily by purification of the
Anglo-American common law), whereas Friedman focuses more
intently on the possibility of plural legal systems co-existing
and responding to the consumer demands of different elements of
the population. The difference, however, is probably over-stated.
Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for consumer demand to
determine the philosophically neutral content of the law, such as
legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property right
definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman
admits that "focal points" including prevalent norms are likely
to circumscribe and somewhat standardize the menu of available
legal codes.
Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or
worker-owned firms would be penalized or prohibited in an
anarcho-capitalist society. It would be more accurate to state
that while individuals would be free to voluntarily form
communitarian organizations, the anarcho- capitalist simply
doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent. However, in
theory an "anarcho-capitalist" society might be filled with
nothing but communes or worker- owned firms, so long as these
associations were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined
voluntarily and capital was obtained with the consent of the
owners) and individuals retained the right to exit and set up
corporations or other profit-making, individualistic firms.
On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all
from the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatized
and opened to free competition; regulation of personal AND
economic behavior should be done away with. Poverty would be
handled by work and responsibility for those able to care for
themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot.
(Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would
greatly increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and
elimination of taxation would lead to a large increase in
charitable giving.)
For a detailed discussion of the economics of privatization of
dispute resolution, rule creation, and enforcement, see my "The
Economics of Non-State Legal Systems," which is archived with my
other economics writings.
11. What criticisms have been made of anarchism?
Anarchism of various breeds has been criticized from an extremely
wide range of perspectives. State-socialists, classical liberals,
and conservatives have each on occasion examined anarchist
theorists and found them wanting. After considering the unifying
argument endorsed by virtually all of the critics of anarchism,
we shall turn to the more specific attacks of Marxist, moderate
libertarian, and conservative lineage.
a. "An anarchist society, lacking any central coercive
authority, would quickly degenerate into violent chaos."
The most common criticism, shared by the entire
range of critics, is basically that anarchism would
swiftly degenerate into a chaotic Hobbesian war of
all-against-all. Thus the communist Friedrich Engels wonders
"[H]ow these people propose to run a factory, operate a
railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort
one deciding will, without single management, they of course
do not tell us." He continues: "The authority of the
majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and
every community is autonomous; but as to how society, even
of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of
his autonomy, Bakunin again maintains silence." And
his autonomy, Bakunin again maintains silence." And
similarly, the classical liberal Ludwig von Mises
states that "An anarchistic society would be exposed
to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if
the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or
threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the
social order. This power is vested in the state or
government."
Or to consider a perhaps less ideological writer,
Thomas Hobbes implicitly criticizes anarchist theory
when he explains that "Hereby it is manifest, that during
the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in
awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and
such a warre, as is of every man, against every man." Hobbes
goes on to add that "It may peradventure be thought, there
was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I
believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but
there are many places, where they live so now. For the
savage people in many places of America, except the
government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth
on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at
this day in that brutish manner, as I said before." Since it
is in the interest of the strong to take what they want from
the weak, the absence of government lead inexorably to
widespread violence and the prevention or destruction of
civilization itself.
Anarchists of all varieties would reject this argument;
sometimes claiming that the critic misunderstands their
position, other times that the critic's assumptions are too
pessimistic. Kropotkin, for example, would seriously dispute
the claim that war is the natural state of ungoverned human
beings; like many other species of animals, cooperation is
more common, natural, and likely. Left- anarchists generally
would normally object that these criticisms rest upon
contingent cultural assumptions arising from a competitive
scarcity economy. Replace these institutions with humane and
egalitarian ones; then poverty, the cause of crime and
aggression, would greatly decrease. Finally, many left-
anarchists envisage cooperatives and communes adopting and
enforcing rules of appropriate conduct for those who wish to
join.
The anarcho-capitalist would likely protest that the critic
misunderstands his view: he does believe that police and
laws are necessary and desirable, and merely holds that they
could be supplied by the free market rather than government.
More fundamentally, he doubts the game- theoretic
underpinnings of Hobbes' argument, for it ignores the
likelihood that aggressive individuals or firms will provoke
retaliation. Just as territorial animals fight when
defending their territory, but yield when confronted on the
territory of another animal, rational self-interested
individuals and firms would usually find aggression a
dangerous and unprofitable practice. In terms of game
theory, the anarcho-capitalist thinks that Hobbes' situation
is a Hawk-Dove game rather than a Prisoners' Dilemma. (In
the Prisoners' Dilemma, war/non-cooperation would be a
strictly dominant strategy; in a Hawk-Dove game there is
normally a mixed-strategy equilibrium in which
cooperation/peace is the norm but a small percentage of
players continue to play war/non-cooperation.) Self-
interested police firms would gladly make long-term
arbitration contracts with each other to avoid mutually
destructive bloodshed.
(To view an excellent short related essay on anarchism and
game theory, click here.)
b. The Marxist critique of left-anarchism
One of the most famous attacks on anarchism was
launched by Karl Marx during his battles with
Proudhon and Bakunin. The ultimate result of this protracted
battle of words was to split the 19th-century workers'
movement into two distinct factions. In the 20th century,
the war of words ended in blows: while Marxist-Leninists
sometimes cooperated with anarchists during the early stages
of the Russian and Spanish revolutions, violent struggle
between them was the rule rather than the exception.
between them was the rule rather than the exception.
There were at least three distinct arguments that
Marx aimed at his anarchist opponents.
First: the development of socialism had to follow a
particular historical course, whereas the anarchists
mistakenly believed that it could be created by force of
will alone. "A radical social revolution is connected with
certain historical conditions of economic development; the
latter are its presupposition. Therefore it is possible only
where the industrial proletariat, together with capitalist
production, occupies at least a substantial place in the
mass of the people." Marx continues: "He [Bakunin]
understands absolutely nothing about social revolution ...
For him economic requisites do not exist...He wants a
European social revolution, resting on the economic
foundation of capitalist production, to take place on the
level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral
peoples ... Will power and not economic conditions is the
basis for his social revolution." Proudhon, according to
Marx, suffered from the same ignorance of history and its
laws: "M. Proudhon, incapable of following the real movement
of history, produces a phantasmagoria which presumptuously
claims to be dialectical ... From his point of view man is
only the instrument of which the idea or the eternal reason
makes use in order to unfold itself." This particular
argument is probably of historical interest only, in light
of the gross inaccuracy of Marx's prediction of the path of
future civilization; although perhaps the general claim that
social progression has material presuppositions retains some
merit.
Second, Marx ridiculed Bakunin's claim that a socialist
government would become a new despotism by socialist
intellectuals. In light of the prophetic accuracy of
Bakunin's prediction in this area, Marx's reply is almost
ironic: "Under collective ownership the so-called people's
will disappears to make way for the real will of the
cooperative." It is on this point that most left-anarchists
reasonably claim complete vindication; just as Bakunin
predicted, the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat"
swiftly became a ruthless "dictatorship over the
proletariat."
Finally, Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously
believed that the government supported the capitalist system
rather than the other way around. In consequence, they were
attacking the wrong target and diverting the workers'
movement from its proper course. Engels delineated the
Marxist and left-anarchist positions quite well: "Bakunin
maintains that it is the state which has created capital,
that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the
state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is
above all the state which must be done away with and then
capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary,
say: Do away with capital, the concentration of the means of
production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall
of itself." The left-anarchist would probably accept this as
a fair assessment of their disagreement with the Marxists,
but point out how in many historical cases since (and
before) Marx's time governments have steered their countries
towards very different aims and policies, whereas
capitalists are often fairly adaptive and passive.
c. The minarchists' attack on anarcho-capitalism
Probably the earliest minarchist attack on anarcho-
capitalism may be found in Ayn Rand's essay "The
Nature of Government." ("Minarchism" designates the advocacy
of a "minimal" or nightwatchman state, supplying only
police, courts, a legal system, and national defense.) Her
critique contained four essential arguments. The first
essentially repeated Hobbes' view that society without
government would collapse into violent chaos. The second was
that anarcho-capitalist police firms would turn to war as
soon as a dispute broke out between individuals employing
different protection agencies: "[S]uppose Mr. Smith, a
customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door
neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed
him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones' house and is
met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that
they do not recognize the authority of Government A. What
happens then? You take it from there." Her third argument
was that anarcho-capitalism was an expression of an
irrational subjectivist epistemology which would allow each
person to decide for himself or herself whether the use of
physical force was justified. Finally, her fourth argument
was that anarcho-capitalism would lack an objective legal
code (meaning, presumably, both publicly known and morally
valid).
Rand's arguments were answered at length in Roy
Childs' "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter
to Ayn Rand," which tried to convince her that only the
anarcho-capitalist position was consistent with her view
that the initiation of force was immoral. In brief, Childs
argued that like other free-market institutions, private
police would have economic incentives to perform their tasks
peacefully and efficiently: police would negotiate
arbitration agreements in advance precisely to avoid the
kind of stand-off that Rand feared, and an objective legal
code could be developed by free-market judges. Childs
strongly contested Rand's claim that anarcho-capitalism had
any relation to irrationalism; an individual could be
rational or irrational in his judgment to use defensive
violence, just as a government could be rational or
irrational in its judgment to do so. As Childs queried, "By
what epistemological criterion is an individual's action
classified as 'arbitrary,' while that of a group of
individuals is somehow 'objective'?"
Robert Nozick launched the other famous attempt to
refute the anarcho-capitalist on libertarian
grounds. Basically, Nozick argued that the supply of police
and legal services was a geographic natural monopoly, and
that therefore a state would emerge by the "invisible hand"
processes of the market itself. The details of his argument
are rather complex: Nozick postulated a right, strongly
contested by other libertarians, to prohibit activities
which were exceptionally risky to others; he then added that
the persons whose actions were so prohibited were entitled
to compensation. Using these two principles, Nozick claimed
that the dominant protection agency in a region could
justifiably prohibit competition on the grounds that it was
"too risky," and therefore become an "ultra-minimal state."
But at this point, it would be obligated to compensate
consumers who were prohibited from purchasing competitors'
services, so it would do so in kind by giving them access to
its own police and legal services -- thereby becoming a
minimal state. And none of these steps, according to Nozick,
violates libertarian rights.
There have been literally dozens of anarchist attacks on
Nozick's derivation of the minimal state. To begin with, no
state arose in the manner Nozick describes, so all existing
states are illegitimate and still merit abolition. Secondly,
anarcho-capitalists dispute Nozick's assumption that defense
is a natural monopoly, noting that the modern security guard
and arbitration industries are extremely decentralized and
competitive. Finally, they reject Nozick's principles of
risk and compensation, charging that they lead directly to
the despotism of preventive law.
d. The conservative critique of anarchism
The conservative critique of anarchism is much less
developed, but can be teased out of the writings of
such authors as Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Ernest van
den Haag. (Interestingly, Burke scholars are still debating
whether the early Burke's quasi-anarchistic A Vindication of
Natural Society was a serious work or a subtle satire.)
Burke would probably say that, like other radical
ideologues, the anarchists place far too much reliance on
their imperfect reason and not enough on the accumulated
wisdom of tradition. Society functions because we have
gradually evolved a system of workable rules. It seems
certain that Burke would apply his critique of the French
revolutionaries with equal force to the anarchists: "They
have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it
off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With
them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of
things, because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in
no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building
run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who
think little or nothing has been done before their time, and
who place all their hopes in discovery." To attempt to
replace the wisdom of the ages with a priori theories of
justice is sure to lead to disaster, because functional
policies must be judicious compromises between important
competing ends. Or in Burke's words, "The science of
constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming
it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be
taught a priori. Nor is it a short experience that can
instruct us in that practical science; because the real
effects of moral causes are not always immediate." The
probable result of any attempt to realize anarchist
principles would be a brief period of revolutionary zeal,
followed by chaos and social breakdown resulting from the
impracticality of the revolutionary policies, and finally
ending in a brutal dictator winning widespread support by
simply restoring order and rebuilding the people's sense of
social stability.
Many anarchists would in fact accept Burke's critique of
violent revolution, which is why they favor advancing their
views gradually through education and nonviolent protest. In
fact, Bakunin's analysis of Marxism as the ideology (i.e.,
rationalization for the class interests of) middle-class
intellectuals in fact differs little from Burke's analysis:
Bakunin, like Burke, perceived that no matter how oppressive
the current system may be, there are always power-hungry
individuals who favor violent revolution as their most
practical route to absolute power. Their protests against
actual injustices must be seen in light of their ultimate
aim of imposing even more ruthless despotism upon the
people.
On other issues, anarchists would disagree strongly with
several of Burke's claims. Many forms of misery stem from
the blind adherence to tradition; and rational thinking has
sparked countless improvements in human society ever since
the decline of traditional despotism. Moreover, anarchists
do not propose to do away with valuable traditions, but
simply request evidence that particular traditions are
valuable before they lend them their support. And what is to
be done when -- as is usually the case -- a society harbors
a wide range of mutually incompatible traditions?
Anarchists might also object that the Burkean analysis
relies too heavily upon tradition as a result rather than a
process. Cultural evolution may constantly weed out foolish
ideas and practices, but it hardly follows that such follies
have already perished; for the state to defend tradition is
to strangle the competitive process which tends to make
tradition sensible. As Vincent Cook explains: "[I]t is
precisely because wisdom has to be accumulated in
incremental steps that it cannot be centrally planned by any
single political or religious authority, contrary to the
aspirations of conservatives and collectivists alike. While
the collectivists are indeed guilty of trying to
rationalistically reconstruct society in defiance of
tradition (a valid criticism of left-anarchists),
conservatives on the other hand are guilty of trying to
freeze old traditions in place. Conservatives have forgotten
that the process of wisdom accumulation is an on-going one,
and instead have opted for the notion that some existing
body of traditions (usually Judeo-Christian) already
represent social perfection."
Russell Kirk, noted Burke scholar, has written a
brief critique of the modern libertarian movement.
(Another conservative, Ernest van den Haag, wrote a
lengthier essay with a similar theme and perspective.) In
all likelihood, Kirk would apply many (but not all) of the
same arguments to left-anarchists.
Kirk faults the libertarians (and when he discusses
"libertarians" he usually seems to have the anarcho-
capitalists in mind) on at least six counts. First, they
deny the existence of a "transcendent moral order." Second,
order is prior to liberty, and liberty is possible only
after government establishes a constitutional order. Third,
libertarians assume that self-interest is the only possible
social bond, ignoring the broader communitarian vision of
human nature found in both the Aristotelian and Judeo-
Christian traditions. Fourth, libertarians erroneously
assume that human beings are naturally good or at least
perfectible. Fifth, the libertarian foolishly attacks the
state as such, rather than merely its abuses. Sixth and
last, the libertarian is an arrogant egoist who disregards
valuable ancient beliefs and customs.
Left-anarchists would perhaps agree with Kirk on points
three and six. So if Kirk were to expand his attack on
anarchism to encompass the left-anarchists as well, he might
acquit them of these two charges. The remaining four,
however, Kirk would probably apply equally to anarchists of
both varieties.
How would anarchists reply to Kirk's criticisms? On the
"moral transcendence" issue, they would point out there have
been religious as well as non-religious anarchists; and
moreover, many non-religious anarchists still embrace moral
objectivism (notably anarchists in the broader natural law
tradition). Most anarchists would deny that they make self-
interest the only possible social bond; and even those who
would affirm this (such as anarcho-capitalists influenced by
Ayn Rand) have a broad conception of self-interest
consistent with the Aristotelian tradition.
As to the priority of order over liberty, many anarchists
influenced by e.g. Kropotkin would reply that as with other
animal species, order and cooperation emerge as a result,
not a consequence of freedom; while anarcho- capitalists
would probably refer Kirk to the theorists of "spontaneous
order" such as Hayek, Hume, Smith, and even Edmund Burke
himself.
The FAQ addresses the questions of human perfectibility and
utopianism in sections 20 and 21. As for Kirk's final point,
most anarchists would reply that they happily accept
valuable customs and traditions, but believe that they have
shown that some ancient practices and institutions -- above
all, the state --have no value whatever.
e. "We are already in a state of anarchy."
Under anarchy, it is conceivable that e.g. a brutal gang
might use its superior might to coerce everyone else to do
as they wish. With nothing more powerful than the gang,
there would (definitionally) be nothing to stop them. But
how does this differ from what we have now? Governments rule
because they have the might to maintain their power; in
short, because there is no superior agency to restrain them.
Hence, reason some critics of anarchism, the goal of
anarchists is futile because we are already in a state of
anarchy.
This argument is confused on several levels.
First, it covertly defines anarchy as unrestrained rule of
the strongest, which is hardly what most anarchists have in
mind. (Moreover, it overlooks the definitional differences
between government and other forms of organized aggression;
Weber in particular noted that governments claim a monopoly
over the legitimate use of force in a given geographical
region.) In fact, while anarchism is logically compatible
with any viewpoint which rejects the existence of the state,
there have been extremely few (perhaps no) anarchists who
combined their advocacy of anarchism with support for
domination by those most skilled in violence.
Second, it seems to assume that all that particular
anarchists advocate is the abolition of the state; but as we
have seen, anarchism is normally combined with additional
normative views about what ought to replace the state. Thus,
most anarchist theorists believe more than merely that the
state should not exist; they also believe that e.g. society
should be based upon voluntary communes, or upon strict
private property rights, etc.
Third, the argument sometimes confuses a definitional with a
causal claim. It is one thing to argue that anarchy would
lead to the rule by the strongest; this is a causal claim
about the likely results of the attempt to create an
anarchist society. It is another thing entirely to argue
that anarchy means rule by the strongest. This is simply a
linguistic confusion, best illustrated by noting that under
this definition anarchy and the state are logically
compatible.
A related but more sophisticated argument, generally leveled
against anarcho- capitalists, runs as follows. If competing
protection agencies could prevent the establishment of an
abusive, dominant firm, while don't they do so now? In
short, if market checks against the abuse of power actually
worked, we wouldn't have a state in the first place.
There are two basic replies to this argument. First of all,
it completely ignores the ideological factor. Anarcho-
capitalists are thinking of how competing firms would
prevent the rise of abusive protection monopolists in a
society where most people don't support the existence of
such a monopolist. It is one thing to suppress a "criminal
firm" when it stands condemned by public opinion and the
values internalized by that firm's employees; it is another
thing entirely to suppress our current "criminal firms"
(i.e., governments) when qua institution enjoy the
overwhelming support of the populace and the state's
enforcers believe in their own cause. When a governing class
loses confidence in its own legitimacy -- from the Ancien
Regime in France to the Communist Party in the USSR -- it
becomes vulnerable and weak. Market checks on government
could indeed establish an anarchist society if the
self-confidence of the governing class were severely eroded
by anarchist ideas.
Secondly, the critique ignores the possibility of multiple
social equilibria. If everyone drives on the right side of
the road, isolated attempts to switch to the left side will
be dangerous and probably unsuccessful. But if everyone
drives on the left side of the road, the same danger exists
for those who believe that the right side is superior and
plan to act on their believe. Similarly, it is quite
possible that given that a government exists, the existence
of government is a stable equilibrium; but if a system of
competitive protection firms existed, that too would be a
stable equilibrium. In short, just because one equilibrium
exists and is stable doesn't mean that it is the only
possible equilibrium. Why then is the state so pervasive if
it is just one possible equilibrium? The superiority of this
equilibrium is one possible explanation; but it could also
be due to ideology, or an inheritance from our barbarous
ancestors.
12. What other anarchist viewpoints are there?
There is definitely another strand of anarchist thought,
although it is far vaguer and less propositional than the
views thus far explicated. For some, "anarchist" is just a
declaration of rebellion against rules and authority of any kind.
There is little attempt made here to explain how society would
work without government; and perhaps there is little conviction
that it could do so. This sort of anarchism is more of an
attitude or emotion -- a feeling that the corrupt world of today
should go down in flames, without any definite view about what if
anything would be preferable and possible. For want of a better
term, I would call this "emotivist anarchism," whose most
prominent exponent is almost certainly Max Stirner (although to
be fair to Stirner he did briefly outline his vision for the
replacement of existing society by a "Union of Egoists").
For the emotivist anarchist, opposition to the state is just a
special case of his or her opposition to almost everything: the
family, traditional art, bourgeois culture, comfortable
middle-aged people, the British monarchy, etc. This position,
when articulated, is often difficult to understand, for it seems
to seek destruction without any suggestion or argument that
anything else would be preferable. Closely linked to emotivist
anarchism, though sometimes a little more theoretical, is
nihilist anarchism. The anarcho-nihilists combine the emotivist's
opposition to virtually all forms of order with radical
subjectivist moral and epistemological theory.
To see Tracy Harms' criticism of my treatment of Stirner, egoism,
and nihilism, click here.
Related to emotivist anarchism is a second strand of less
intellectual, more emotional anarchist thought. It has been
called by some "moral anarchism." This view again feels that
existing statist society is bad; but rather than lay out any
comprehensive plans for its abolition, this sort of anarchist
sticks to more immediate reforms. Anarchism of this sort is a
kind of ideal dream, which is beautiful and inspiring to
contemplate while we pursue more concrete aims.
The emotivist anarchist often focuses on action and disdains
theorizing. In contrast, another breed of anarchists, known as
"philosophical anarchists," see few practical implications of
their intellectual position. Best represented by Robert Paul
Wolff, philosophical anarchism simply denies that the state's
orders as such can confer any legitimacy whatever. Each
individual must exercise his moral autonomy to judge right and
wrong for himself, irrespective of the state's decrees. However,
insofar as the state's decrees accord with one's private
conscience, there is no need to change one's behavior. A position
like Wolff's says, in essence, that the rational person cannot
and must not offer the blind obedience to authority that
governments often seem to demand; but this insight need not spark
any political action if one's government's decrees are not
unusually immoral.
Yet another faction, strongly influenced by Leo Tolstoy, refer to
themselves as "Christian anarchists." (Tolstoy avoided the term
"anarchist," probably because of its association with violence
and terrorism in the minds of contemporary Russians.) Drawing on
the Gospels' themes of nonviolence and the equality of all human
beings, these anarchists condemn government as contrary to
Christian teaching. Tolstoy particularly emphasized the
immorality of war, military service, and patriotism, challenging
Christians to live up to the radical implications of their faith
by withdrawing their support from all three of these evils.
Tolstoy's essay "Patriotism, or Peace?" is particularly notable
for its early attack upon nationalism and the bloodshed that
usually accompanies it.
Finally, many leftist and progressive movements have an anarchist
interpretation and anarchist advocates. For example, a faction of
feminists, calling themselves "anarcha- feminists" exists. The
feminists, calling themselves "anarcha- feminists" exists. The
Green and environmentalist movements also have strong
anarchist wings which blend opposition to the state and
defense of the environment. Their primary theoretician is
probably Murray Bookchin, who (lately) advocates a society of
small and fairly autarchic localities. As Bookchin explains, "the
anarchist concepts of a balanced community, a face-to-face
democracy, a humanistic technology and a decentralized society --
these rich libertarian concepts -- are not only desirable, they
are also necessary." Institutions such as the town meeting of
classical democratic theory point the way to a radical
reorganization of society, in which small environmentally
concerned townships regularly meet to discuss and vote upon their
communities' production and broader aims. Doubtlessly there are
many other fusions between anarchism and progressive causes, and
more spring up as new concerns develop.
13. What moral justifications have been offered for anarchism?
Again, there are a great many answers which have been offered.
Some anarchists, such as the emotivist and (paradoxically) the
moral anarchists have little interest in high-level moral theory.
But this has been of great interest to the more intellectual
sorts of anarchists.
One popular argument for anarchism is that it is the only way for
true socialism to exist. State-socialism is unable to actually
establish human equality; instead it simply creating a new ruling
class. Bakunin prophetically predicted the results of socialists
seizing control of the state when he wrote that the socialist
elite would form a "new class" which would be "the most
aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and contemptuous of all
regimes." Elsewhere Bakunin wrote that "[F]reedom without
Socialism is privilege and injustice, ... Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality." Of course, socialism itself
has been defended on both deontological and utilitarian grounds,
and there is no need to repeat these here.
On the other hand, anarcho-capitalists have argued that only
under anarchism can the Lockean rights to person and property so
loudly championed by more moderate libertarians be fully
respected. Any attempt to impose a monopolistic government
necessarily prevents competing police and judicial services from
providing a legitimate service; moreover, so long as government
exists taxation will persist. The government's claim to defend
private property is thus quite ironic, for the state, in
Rothbard's words, is "an institution that presumes to 'defend'
person and property by itself subsisting on the unilateral
coercion against private property known as taxation." Other
anarcho- capitalists such as David Friedman find these arguments
from natural Lockean rights unconvincing, and instead take up the
task of trying to show that Adam Smith's utilitarian case for
free-market capitalism applies just as well to free markets in
defense services, making the state useless as well as dangerous.
Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
means of free competition. In their view, only labor income is
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labor income
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
economic effect thereof would not actually occur. (Other
individualist anarchists have argued that contrary to Spooner and
Tucker, free banking would lead to a much lower rate of inflation
than we experience today; that rent and interest are not due to
"monopoly" but to scarcity of land and loanable funds; and that
there is no moral distinction between labor and rental or
interest income, all of which depend upon a mixture of scarcity,
demand, luck, and effort.)
A basic moral intuition that probably anarchists of all varieties
share is simply that no one has the right to rule another person.
The interpretation of "rulership," however, varies: left
anarchists tend to see the employer-employee relationship as one
of rulership, and anarcho-capitalists are often dubious of the
claim that envisaged anarchists communes would be democratic and
hence voluntary. A closely related moral intuition, again widely
shared by all sorts of anarchists, is that each person should
exercise personal autonomy, or self-rule. One should question
authority, and make up one's mind for oneself rather than simply
following the herd. Again, the interpretation of "personal
autonomy" varies: the left-anarchist sees the employer-employee
relationship as inherently violating personal autonomy, whereas
the anarcho-capitalist is more likely to see personal autonomy
disappearing in the commune or collective, regardless of how
democratically they run themselves.
14. What are the major debates between anarchists? What are the
recurring arguments?
Without a doubt, the most repeated debate among modern anarchists
is fought between the left-anarchists on one side and the
anarcho-capitalists on the other. Of course, there are occasional
debates between different left-anarchist factions, but probably
most of them would be content with an anarchist society populated
by some mixture of communes, worker-controlled firms, and
cooperatives. And similarly there are a few internal debates
between anarcho- capitalists, notably the tension between
Rothbard's natural law anarcho-capitalism and David Friedman's
more economistic anarcho-capitalism. But it is the debate between
the left-anarchists and the anarcho-capitalists which is the most
fundamental and the most acrimonious. There are many sub-debates
within this wider genre, which we will now consider.
a. "X is not 'true anarchism.'"
One of the least fruitful of these sub-debates is the
frequent attempt of one side to define the other out of
existence ("You are not truly an anarchist, for anarchists
must favor [abolition of private property, atheism,
Christianity, etc.]") In addition to being a trivial issue,
the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For
example, despite a popular claim that socialism and
anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception
of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not
only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even
Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private
property (merely believing that some existing sorts of
property were illegitimate, without opposing private
property as such).
As Benjamin Tucker wrote in 1887, "It will probably
surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his
declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
all the possession by the laborer of his products."
Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of "anarchist." In his
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
Proudhon but "the American anarchist individualists who were
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
Liberty." Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
including "Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer."
b. "Anarchism of variant X is unstable and will lead to the
re-emergence of the state."
A more substantive variation is to argue that the opposing
anarchism would be unstable and lead to the swift re-
emergence of government. Thus, the left-anarchists often
argue that the defense corporations envisaged by anarcho-
capitalists would war with one another until one came out as
the new government; or else they would collude to establish
themselves as the new capitalist oligarchs. As Noam Chomsky
says in an interview with Ulrike Heider, "The predatory
forces of the market would destroy society, would destroy
community, and destroy the workforce. Nothing would be left
except people hating each other and fighting each other."
Anarcho-capitalists reply that this grossly underestimates
the degree of competition likely to prevail in the defense
industry; that war is likely to be very unprofitable and
dangerous, and is more likely to be provoked by ideology
than sober profit-maximization; and that economic theory and
economic history show that collusion is quite difficult to
maintain.
Anarcho-capitalists for their part accuse the
left-anarchists of intending to impose their communal vision
upon everyone; since everyone will not go along voluntarily,
a government will be needed to impose it. Lest we think that
this argument is a recent invention, it is interesting to
find that essentially this argument raged in the 19th-
century anarchist movement as well. In John MacKay's The
Anarchists, we see the essential dialogue between
individualist and collectivist anarchism has a longer
history than one might think:
"Would you, in the system of society which you
call 'free Communism' prevent individuals from
exchanging their labor among themselves by means
of their own medium of exchange? And further:
Would you prevent them from occupying land for the
purpose of personal use?"... [The] question was
not to be escaped. If he answered "Yes!" he
admitted that society had the right of control
over the individual and threw overboard the
autonomy of the individual which he had always
zealously defended; if on the other hand he
answered "No!" he admitted the right of private
property which he had just denied so emphatically
... Then he answered "In Anarchy any number of men
must have the right of forming a voluntary
association, and so realizing their ideas in
practice. Nor can I understand how any one could
justly be driven from the land and house which he
uses and occupies ... [E]very serious man must
declare himself: for Socialism, and thereby for
force and against liberty, or for Anarchism, and
thereby for liberty and against force."
There have been several left-anarchist replies. One is to
readily agree that dissenters would have the right to not
join a commune, with the proviso that they must not employ
others or otherwise exploit them. Another is to claim that
anarchism will change (or cease to warp) human attitudes so
that they will be more communitarian and less
individualistic. Finally, some argue that this is simply
another sophistical argument for giving the rich and
powerful the liberty to take away the liberty of everyone
else.
c. "In an anarchist society in which both systems X and Y
existed, X would inevitably outcompete Y."
Again, this argument has been made from several
perspectives. Left-anarchists have argued that if workers
had the genuine option to work for a capitalist employer, or
else work for themselves in a worker cooperative, virtually
all workers would choose the latter. Moreover, workers in a
worker-managed firm would have higher morale and greater
incentive to work hard compared with workers who just worked
for the benefit of their employer. Hence, capitalists would
be unable to pay their workers wages competitive with the
wages of the labor-managed firm, and by force of competition
would gradually vanish.
Anarcho-capitalists find that the argument works in
precisely the opposite direction. For what is a worker-owned
firm if not a firm in which the workers jointly hold all of
the stock? Now this is a peculiarly irrational portfolio to
hold, because it means that workers would, in effect, put
all their eggs in one basket; if their firm does well, they
grow rich, but if their firm goes bankrupt, they lose
everything. It would make much more sense for workers to
exchange their shares in their own firm to buy shares in
other firms in order to insure themselves against risk.
Thus, the probable result of worker-owned firms with
negotiable shares would be that workers would readily and
advantageously sell off most of their shares in their own
firm in order to diversify their portfolios. The end result
is likely to be the standard form of capitalist
organization, in which workers receive a fixed payment for
their services and the owners of the firms' shares earn the
variable profits. Of course, alienation of shares could be
banned, but this appears to do nothing except force workers
to live with enormous financial risk. None of this shows
that worker-owned firms could not persist if the workers
were so ideologically committed to worker control that their
greater productivity outweighed the riskiness of the
workers' situation; but anarcho-capitalists doubt very much
that such intense ideology would prevail in more than a
small portion of the population. Indeed, they expect that
the egalitarian norms and security from dismissal that
left-anarchists typically favor would grossly undermine
everyone's incentive to work hard and kill abler workers'
desire for advancement.
Some anarcho-capitalists go further and argue that
inequality would swiftly re-emerge in an anarcho-syndicalist
economy. Workers would treat their jobs as a sort of
property right, and would refuse to hire new workers on
equal terms because doing so would dilute the current
workers' shares in the firm's profits. The probable result
would be that an elite class of workers in capital-intensive
firms would exploit new entrants into the work force much as
capitalists allegedly do today. As evidence, they point to
existing "worker-controlled" firms such as law firms --
normally they consist of two tiers of workers, one of which
both works and owns the firm ("the partners"), while the
remainder are simply employees ("the associates" as well as
the secretaries, clerks, etc.)
d. "Anarchism of type X would be worse than the state."
To the left-anarchist, the society envisaged by the anarcho-
capitalists often seems far worse than what we have now. For
it is precisely to the inequality, exploitation, and tyranny
of modern capitalism that they object, and rather than
abolishing it the anarcho-capitalist proposes to unleash its
worst features and destroy its safety net. Noam Chomsky, for
instance, has suggested that anarcho-capitalists focus
incorrectly on state domination, failing to recognize the
underlying principle of opposition to all domination,
including the employer-employee relationship. Overall, since
anarcho-capitalism relies heavily on laissez-faire economic
theory, and since left-anarchists see no validity to
laissez-faire economic theory, it seems to the latter that
anarcho-capitalism would be a practical disaster. Left-
anarchists often equate anarcho-capitalism with social
Darwinism and even fascism, arguing that the cruel idea of
"survival of the fittest" underlies them all.
The anarcho-capitalist, in turn, often suspects that the
left- anarchist's world would be worse than the world of
today. Under anarcho-capitalism, individuals would still
have every right to voluntarily pool their property to form
communes, worker-controlled firms, and cooperatives; they
would simply be unable to force dissenters to join them.
Since this fact rarely impresses the left-anarchist, the
anarcho-capitalist often concludes that the left-anarchist
will not be satisfied with freedom for his preferred
lifestyle; he wants to force his communal lifestyle on
everyone. Not only would this be a gross denial of human
freedom, but it would (according to the anarcho-capitalist)
be likely to have disastrous effects on economic incentives,
and swiftly lead humanity into miserable poverty. The
anarcho-capitalist is also frequently disturbed by the
opposition to all order sometimes voiced by left-anarchists;
for he feels that only coerced order is bad and welcomes the
promotion of an orderly society by voluntary means.
Similarly, the left-anarchists' occasional short time
horizon, emphasis on immediate satisfaction, and low regard
for work (which can be seen in a number of authors strongly
influenced by emotivist anarchism) frighten the
anarcho-capitalist considerably.
e. Etc.
A large number of arguments that go back and forth basically
duplicate the standard socialist vs. capitalist debate. The
need or lack thereof for incentives, security, equality,
regulation, protection of the environment, and so on are
debated extensively on other sources on the Net, and there
are several FAQs which discuss these issues from a variety
of viewpoints. FAQs on the broader libertarian movement are
frequently posted on alt.individualism,
alt.politics.libertarian, and talk.politics.libertarian.
FAQs on socialism similarly appear from time to time on
alt.politics.radical-left and alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Related
FAQs sometimes appear on talk.politics.theory. Hence, we
will spend no further space on these broader issues which
are amply addressed elsewhere.
15. How would anarchists handle the "public goods" problem?
Modern neoclassical (or "mainstream") economists -- especially
those associated with theoretical welfare economics -- have
several important arguments for the necessity or desirability of
government. Out of all of these, the so-called "public goods"
problem is surely the most frequently voiced. In fact, many
academics consider it a rigorous justification for the existence
and limits of the state. Anarcho-capitalists are often very
familiar with this line of thought and spend considerable time
trying to refute it; left- anarchists are generally less
interested, but it is still useful to see how the left-anarchist
might respond.
We will begin by explaining the concept of Pareto
optimality, show how the Pareto criterion is used to
justify state action, and then examine how anarchists might
object to the underlying assumptions of these economic
justifications for the state. After exploring the general
critique, we will turn to the problem of public goods (and the
closely related externalities issue). After showing how many
economists believe that these problems necessitate government
action, we will consider how left-anarchists and
anarcho-capitalists might reply.
a. The concept and uses of Pareto optimality in economics
The most widely-used concept in theoretical welfare
economics is "Pareto optimality" (also known as "Pareto
efficiency"). An allocation is Pareto-optimal iff it is
impossible to make at least one person better off without
making anyone else worse off; a Pareto improvement is a
change in an allocation which makes someone better off
without making anyone else worse off. As Hal Varian's
Microeconomic Analysis explains, "[A] Pareto efficient
allocation is one for which each agent is as well off as
possible, given the utilities of the other agents." "Better"
and "worse" are based purely upon subjective preferences
which can be summarized in a "utility function," or ordinal
numerical index of preference satisfaction.
While initially it might seem that every situation is
necessarily Pareto optimal, this is not the case. True, if
the only good is food, and each agent wants as much food as
possible, then every distribution is Pareto optimal. But if
half of the agents own food and the other half own clothes,
the distribution will not necessarily be Pareto optimal,
since each agent might prefer either more food and fewer
clothes or vice versa.
Normally, economists would expect agents to voluntarily
trade in any situation which is not Pareto optimal; but
neoclassical theorists have considered a number of
situations in which trade would be a difficult route to
Pareto optimality. For example, suppose that each agent is
so afraid of the other that they avoid each other, even
though they could both benefit from interaction. What they
need is an independent and powerful organization to e.g.
protect both agents from each other so that they can reach a
Pareto-optimal allocation. What they need, in short, is the
state. While economists' examples are usually more
elaborate, the basic intuition is that government is
necessary to satisfy the seemingly uncontroversial principle
of Pareto optimality.
Anarchists of all sorts would immediately object that the
very existence of deontological anarchists shows that Pareto
optimality can never justify state action. If even the
slightest increase in the level of state activity
incompensably harms the deontological anarchist, then
obviously it is never true that state action can make some
people better off without making any others worse off.
Moreover, virtually all government action makes some people
better off and other people worse off, so plainly the
pursuit of Pareto improvements has little to do with what
real governments do.
Due to these difficulties, in practice economists
must base their judgments upon the far more
controversial judgments of cost-benefit analysis. (In the
works of Richard Posner, this economistic cost-benefit
approach to policy decisions is called
"wealth-maximization"; a common synonym is "Kaldor-Hicks
efficiency.") With cost-benefit analysis, there is no
pretense made that government policy enjoys unanimous
approval. Thus, it is open to the many objections frequently
made to e.g. utilitarianism; moreover, since cost-benefit
analysis is based upon agents' willingness to pay, rather
than on agents' utility, it runs into even more moral
paradoxes than utilitarianism typically does.
In the final analysis, welfare economists' attempt to
provide a value-free or at least value-minimal justification
of the state fails quite badly. Nevertheless, economic
analysis may still inform more substantive moral theories:
Pareto optimality, for example, is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for a utilitarian justification of the
state.
b. The public goods problem
The "public goods" argument is certainly the most popular
economic argument for the state. It allegedly shows that the
existence of government can be Pareto optimal, and that the
non-existence of the state cannot be Pareto optimal; or at
least, it shows that the existence of government is
justifiable on cost-benefit grounds. Supposedly, there exist
important services, such as national defense, which benefit
people whether they pay for them or not. The result is that
selfish agents refuse to contribute, leading to disaster.
The only way to solve this problem is to coerce the
beneficiaries to raise the funds to supply the needed good.
In order for this coercion to work, it needs to be
monopolized by a single agency, the state.
Public goods arguments have been made not only for national
defense, but for police, roads, education, R&D, scientific
research, and many other goods and services. The essential
definitional feature of public goods is "non-
excludability"; because the benefits cannot be limited to
contributors, there is no incentive to contribute. (A second
definitional characteristic often attributed to public goods
is "non-rivalrousness"; my own view is that this second
attribute just confuses the issue, since without the non-
excludability problem, non-rivalrousness would merely be
another instance of the ubiquitous practice of pricing above
marginal cost.)
The concept of externalities is very closely connected to
the concept of public goods; the main difference is that
economists usually think of externalities as being both
"positive" (e.g. R&D spill-overs) and "negative" (e.g.
pollution), whereas they usually don't discuss "public
bads." In any case, again we have the problem that agents
perform actions which harm or benefit other people, and the
harm/benefit is "non-excludable." Victims of negative
externalities can't feasibly charge polluters a fee for
suffering, and beneficiaries of positive externalities can't
feasibly be c | | |
