One "anarcho"-capitalist overview of their tradition is presented by David M. Hart. His perspective on anarchism is typical of the school, noting that in his essay anarchism or anarchist "are used in the sense of a political theory which advocates the maximum amount of individual liberty, a necessary condition of which is the elimination of governmental or other organised force." [David M. Hart, "Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part I", pp. 263-290, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 3, p. 284] Yet anarchism has never been solely concerned with abolishing the state. Rather, anarchists have always raised economic and social demands and goals along with their opposition to the state. As such, anti-statism may be a necessary condition to be an anarchist, but not a sufficient one to count a specific individual or theory as anarchist.
Specifically, anarchists have turned their analysis onto private property noting that the hierarchical social relationships created by inequality of wealth (for example, wage labour) restricts individual freedom. This means that if we do seek "the maximum of individual liberty" then our analysis cannot be limited to just the state or government. Consequently, to limit anarchism as Hart does requires substantial rewriting of history, as can be seen from his account of William Godwin.
Hart tries to co-opt of William Godwin into the ranks of "anti-state" liberalism, arguing that he "defended individualism and the right to property." [Op. Cit., p. 265] He, of course, quotes from Godwin to support his claim yet strangely truncates Godwin's argument to exclude his conclusion that "[w]hen the laws of morality shall be clearly understood, their excellence universally apprehended, and themselves seen to be coincident with each man's private advantage, the idea of property in this sense will remain, but no man will have the least desire, for purposes of ostentation or luxury, to possess more than his neighbours." [An Enquiry into Political Justice, p. 199] In other words, personal property (possession) would still exist but not private property in the sense of capital or inequality of wealth.
This analysis is confirmed in book 8 of Godwin's classic work entitled "On Property." Needless to say, Hart fails to mention this analysis, unsurprising as it was later reprinted as a socialist pamphlet. Godwin thought that the "subject of property is the key-stone that completes the fabric of political justice." Like Proudhon, Godwin subjects property as well as the state to an anarchist analysis. For Godwin, there were "three degrees" of property. The first is possession of things you need to live. The second is "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." The third is "that which occupies the most vigilant attention in the civilised states of Europe. It is a system, in whatever manner established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another man's industry." He notes that it is "clear therefore that the third species of property is in direct contradiction to the second." [Op. Cit., p. 701 and p. 710-2]
Godwin, unlike classical liberals, saw the need to "point out the evils of accumulated property," arguing that the the "spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud . . . are the immediate growth of the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to intellectual and moral improvement." Like the socialists he inspired, Godwin argued that "it is to be considered that this injustice, the unequal distribution of property, the grasping and selfish spirit of individuals, is to be regarded as one of the original sources of government, and, as it rises in its excesses, is continually demanding and necessitating new injustice, new penalties and new slavery." He stressed, "let it never be forgotten that accumulated property is usurpation." [Op. Cit., p. 732, pp. 717-8, and p. 718]
Godwin argued against the current system of property and in favour of "the justice of an equal distribution of the good things of life." This would be based on "[e]quality of conditions, or, in other words, an equal admission to the means of improvement and pleasure" as this "is a law rigorously enjoined upon mankind by the voice of justice." [Op. Cit., p. 725 and p. 736] Thus his anarchist ideas were applied to private property, noting like subsequent anarchists that economic inequality resulted in the loss of liberty for the many and, consequently, an anarchist society would see a radical change in property and property rights. As Kropotkin noted, Godwin "stated in 1793 in a quite definite form the political and economic principle of Anarchism." Little wonder he, like so many others, argued that Godwin was "the first theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism." [Environment and Evolution, p. 62 and p. 26] For Kropotkin, anarchism was by definition not restricted to purely political issues but also attacked economic hierarchy, inequality and injustice. As Peter Marshall confirms, "Godwin's economics, like his politics, are an extension of his ethics." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 210]
Godwin's theory of property is significant because it reflected
what was to become standard nineteenth century socialist thought
on the matter. In Britain, his ideas influenced Robert Owen and,
as a result, the early socialist movement in that country. His
analysis of property, as noted, predated Proudhon's classic
anarchist analysis. As such, to state, as Hart did, that Godwin
simply "concluded that the state was an evil which had to be
reduced in power if not eliminated completely" while not noting
his analysis of property gives a radically false presentation
of his ideas. [Hart, Op. Cit., p. 265] However, it does fit
into his flawed assertion that anarchism is purely concerned
with the state. Any evidence to the contrary is simply ignored.
Hart is on firmer ground when he argues that the 19th century
French economist Gustave de Molinari is the true founder of
"anarcho"-capitalism. With Molinari, he argues, "the two different
currents of anarchist thought converged: he combined the political
anarchism of Burke and Godwin with the nascent economic anarchism
of Adam Smith and Say to create a new forms of anarchism" that
has been called "anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism."
[Op. Cit., p. 269] Of course, Godwin (like other anarchists) did
not limit his anarchism purely to "political" issues and so he
discussed "economic anarchism" as well in his critique of private
property (as Proudhon also did later). As such, to artificially
split anarchism into political and economic spheres is both
historically and logically flawed. While some dictionaries
limit "anarchism" to opposition to the state, anarchists did
and do not.
The key problem for Hart is that Molinari refused to call himself
an anarchist. He did not even oppose government, as Hart himself
notes Molinari proposed a system of insurance companies to
provide defence of property and "called these insurance companies
'governments' even though they did not have a monopoly within a
given geographical area." As Hart notes, Molinari was the sole
defender of such free-market justice at the time in France.
[David M. Hart, "Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal
Tradition: Part II", pp. 399-434,Journal of Libertarian Studies,
vol. V, no. 4, p. 415 and p. 411] Molinari was clear that he wanted
"a regime of free government," counterpoising "monopolist or communist
governments" to "free governments." This would lead to "freedom of
government" rather than its abolition (not freedom from government).
For Molinarie the future would not bring "the suppression of the
state which is the dream of the anarchists . . . It will bring the
diffusion of the state within society. That is . . . 'a free state
in a free society.'" [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 429, p. 411 and
p. 422] As such, Molinari can hardly be considered an anarchist,
even if "anarchist" is limited to purely being against government.
Moreover, in another sense Molinari was in favour of the state.
As we discuss in section 6, these companies would have a monopoly
within a given geographical area -- they have to in order to
enforce the property owner's power over those who use, but do
not own, the property in question. The key contradiction can be
seen in Molinari's advocating of company towns, privately owned
communities (his term was a "proprietary company"). Instead of
taxes, people would pay rent and the "administration of the
community would be either left in the hands of the company itself
or handled special organisations set up for this purpose." Within
such a regime "those with the most property had proportionally the
greater say in matters which affected the community." If the poor
objected then they could simply leave. [Op. Cit., pp. 421-2 and
p. 422]
Given this, the idea that Molinari was an anarchist in any form can
be dismissed. His system was based on privatising government, not
abolishing it (as he himself admitted). This would be different from
the current system, of course, as landlords and capitalists would be
hiring force directly to enforce their decisions rather than relying
on a state which they control indirectly. This system, as we proved
in section 6, would not be anarchist as can be seen from American
history. There capitalists and landlords created their own private
police forces and armies, which regularly attacked and murdered union
organisers and strikers. As an example, there is Henry Ford's Service
Department (private police force):
The private police attacked women workers handing out pro-union handbills
and gave them "a severe beating." At Kansas and Dallas "similar beatings
were handed out to the union men." This use of private police to control
the work force was not unique. General Motors "spent one million dollars
on espionage, employing fourteen detective agencies and two hundred spies
at one time [between 1933 and 1936]. The Pinkerton Detective Agency found
anti-unionism its most lucrative activity." [Op. Cit., p. 34 and p. 32]
We must also note that the Pinkerton's had been selling their private
police services for decades before the 1930s. For over 60 years the
Pinkerton Detective Agency had "specialised in providing spies, agent
provocateurs, and private armed forces for employers combating labour
organisations." By 1892 it "had provided its services for management
in seventy major labour disputes, and its 2 000 active agents and 30 000
reserves totalled more than the standing army of the nation." [Jeremy
Brecher, Strike!, p. 55] With this force available, little wonder
unions found it so hard to survive in the USA.
Only an "anarcho"-capitalist would deny that this is a private government,
employing private police to enforce private power. Given that unions could
be considered as "defence" agencies for workers, this suggests a picture
of how "anarcho"-capitalism may work in practice radically different from
the pictures painted by its advocates. The reason is simple, it does not
ignore inequality and subjects economics to an anarchist analysis. Little
wonder, then, that Proudhon stressed that it "becomes necessary for the
workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions
for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." Anarchism, in
other words, would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation
stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished" and so "the economic
organisation [would] replac[e] the governmental and military system."
[The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 227 and p. 281] Clearly, the
idea that Proudhon shared the same political goal as Molinari is a joke.
He would have dismissed such a system as little more than an updated form
of feudalism in which the property owner is sovereign and the workers
subjects (see section B.4 for more details).
Unsurprisingly, Molinari (unlike the individualist anarchists) attacked
the jury system, arguing that its obliged people to "perform the duties
of judges. This is pure communism." People would "judge according to the
colour of their opinions, than according to justice." [quoted by Hart,
Op. Cit., p. 409] As the jury system used amateurs (i.e. ordinary people)
rather than full-time professionals it could not be relied upon to defend
the power and property rights of the rich. As we noted in
section 1.4,
Rothbard criticised the individualist anarchists for supporting juries
for essentially the same reasons.
But, as is clear from Hart's account, Molinari had little concern
that working class people should have a say in their own lives beyond
consuming goods. His perspective can be seen from his lament about those "colonies where slavery has been
abolished without the compulsory labour being replaced with an equivalent
quantity of free [sic!] labour [i.e., wage labour], there has occurred
the opposite of what happens everyday before our eyes. Simple workers
have been seen to exploit in their turn the industrial entrepreneurs,
demanding from them wages which bear absolutely no relation to the
legitimate share in the product which they ought to receive. The planters
were unable to obtain for their sugar a sufficient price to cover the
increase in wages, and were obliged to furnish the extra amount, at
first out of their profits, and then out of their very capital. A
considerable number of planters have been ruined as a result . . .
It is doubtless better that these accumulations of capital should be
destroyed than that generations of men should perish [Marx: 'how
generous of M. Molinari'] but would it not be better if both survived?"
[quoted by Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 937f]
So workers exploiting capital is the "opposite of what happens everyday
before our eyes"? In other words, it is normal that entrepreneurs
"exploit" workers under capitalism? Similarly, what is a "legitimate share" which workers "ought to
receive"? Surely that is determined by the eternal laws of supply and
demand and not what the capitalists (or Molinari) thinks is right?
And those poor former slave drivers, they really do deserve our sympathy.
What horrors they face from the impositions subjected upon them by
their ex-chattels -- they had to reduce their profits! How dare their
ex-slaves refuse to obey them in return for what their ex-owners think
was their "legitimate share in the produce"! How "simple" these workers
are, not understanding the sacrifices their former masters suffer nor
appreciating how much more difficult it is for their ex-masters to
create "the product" without the whip and the branding iron to aid
them! As Marx so rightly comments: "And what, if you please, is this 'legitimate
share', which, according to [Molinari's] own admission, the capitalist
in Europe daily neglects to pay? Over yonder, in the colonies, where the
workers are so 'simple' as to 'exploit' the capitalist, M. Molinari
feels a powerful itch to use police methods to set on the right road
that law of supply and demand which works automatically everywhere
else." [Op. Cit., p. 937f]
An added difficulty in arguing that Molinari was an anarchist is that he
was a contemporary of Proudhon, the first self-declared anarchist, and lived
in a country with a vigorous anarchist movement. Surely if he was really
an anarchist, he would have proclaimed his kinship with Proudhon and joined
in the wider movement. He did not, as Hart notes as regards Proudhon:
Yet Proudhon's economic views, like Godwin's, flowed from his anarchist
analysis and principles. They cannot be arbitrarily separated as Hart
suggests. So while arguing that "Molinari was just as much an anarchist
as Proudhon," Hart forgets the key issue. Proudhon was aware that private
property ensured that the proletarian did not exercise "self-government"
during working hours, i.e. was not a self-governing individual. As for
Hart claiming that Proudhon had "statist economic views" it simply shows
how far an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective is from genuine anarchism.
Proudhon's economic analysis, his critique of private property and
capitalism, flowed from his anarchism and was an integral aspect of it.
To restrict anarchism purely to opposition to the state, Hart is
impoverishing anarchist theory and denying its history. Given
that anarchism was born from a critique of private property as well
as government, this shows the false nature of Hart's claim that
"Molinari was the first to develop a theory of free-market,
proprietary anarchism that extended the laws of the market and
a rigorous defence of property to its logical extreme." [Op. Cit.,
p. 415 and p. 416] Hart shows how far from anarchism Molinari was
as Proudhon had turned his anarchist analysis to property, showing
that "defence of property" lead to the oppression of the many by
the few in social relationships identical to those which mark
the state. Moreover, Proudhon, argued the state would always be
required to defend such social relations. Privatising it would
hardly be a step forward.
Unsurprisingly, Proudhon dismissed the idea that the laissez faire
capitalists shared his goals. "The school of Say," Proudhon argued,
was "the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits"
and "has for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and
applaud the execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessities,
deepening more and more the obscurity of a science naturally difficult
and full of complications." Much the same can be said of "anarcho"-
capitalists, incidentally. For Proudhon, "the disciples of Malthus and
of Say, who oppose with all their might any intervention of the State
in matters commercial or industrial, do not fail to avail themselves
of this seemingly liberal attitude, and to show themselves more
revolutionary than the Revolution. More than one honest searcher
has been deceived thereby." However, this apparent "anti-statist"
attitude of supporters of capitalism is false as pure free market
capitalism cannot solve the social question, which arises because
of capitalism itself. As such, it was impossible to abolish the
state under capitalism. Thus "this inaction of Power in economic
matters was the foundation of government. What need should we have
of a political organisation, if Power once permitted us to enjoy
economic order?" Instead of capitalism, Proudhon advocated the
"constitution of Value," the "organisation of credit," the
elimination of interest, the "establishment of workingmen's
associations" and "the use of a just price." [The General Idea
of the Revolution, p. 225, p. 226 and p. 233]
Clearly, then, the claims that Molinari was an anarchist fail as
he, unlike his followers, were aware of what anarchism actually
stood for. Hart, in his own way, acknowledges this:
It should be noted that Proudhon was not a communist-anarchist,
but the point remains. The aims of anarchism were recognised by
Molinari as being inconsistent with his ideology. Consequently,
he (rightly) refused the label. If only his self-proclaimed
followers in the "latter half of the twentieth century" did the
same anarchists would not have to bother with them!
As such, it seems ironic that the founder of "anarcho"-capitalism
should have come to the same conclusion as modern day anarchists
on the subject of whether his ideas are a form of anarchism or not!
Herbert was clearly aware of individualist anarchism and distanced
himself from it. He argued that such a system would be "pandemonium."
He thought that people should "not direct our attacks - as the
anarchists do - against all government , against government in
itself" but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the
insolent, unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which
are found everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited
to its legitimate duties in defence of self-ownership and individual
rights." He stressed that "we are governmentalists . . . formally
constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the
majority method." Moreover, Herbert knew of, and rejected,
individualist anarchism, considering it to be "founded on a fatal
mistake." [Essay X: The Principles Of Voluntaryism And Free Life]
As such, claims that he was an anarchist or "anarcho"-capitalist
cannot be justified.
Hart is aware of this slight problem, quoting Herbert's claim that
he aimed for "regularly constituted government, generally accepted by
all citizens for the protection of the individual." [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit.,
p. 86] Like Molinari, Herbert was aware that anarchism was a form
of socialism and that the political aims could not be artificially
separated from its economic and social aims. As such, he was right
not to call his ideas anarchism as it would result in confusion
(particularly as anarchism was a much larger movement than his). As Hart acknowledges, "Herbert faced the same problems that Molinari had with labelling
his philosophy. Like Molinari, he rejected the term 'anarchism,'
which he associated with the socialism of Proudhon and . . .
terrorism." While "quite tolerant" of individualist anarchism,
he thought they "were mistaken in their rejections of 'government.'"
However, Hart knows better than Herbert about his own ideas, arguing
that his ideology "is in fact a new form of anarchism, since the most
important aspect of the modern state, the monopoly of the use of force
in a given area, is rejected in no uncertain terms by both men." [Op.
Cit., p. 86] He does mention that Benjamin Tucker called Herbert a
"true anarchist in everything but name," but Tucker denied that
Kropotkin was an anarchist suggesting that he was hardly a reliable
guide. [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 87] As it stands, it seems that
Tucker was mistaken in his evaluation of Herbert's politics.
Economically, Herbert was not an anarchist, arguing that the state
should protect Lockean property rights. Of course, Hart may argue
that these economic differences are not relevant to the issue of
Herbert's anarchism but that is simply to repeat the claim that
anarchism is simply concerned with government, a claim which is
hard to support. This position cannot be maintained, given that
both Herbert and Molinari defended the right of capitalists and
landlords to force their employees and tenants to follow their
orders. Their "governments" existed to defend the capitalist from
rebellious workers, to break unions, strikes and occupations. In
other words, they were a monopoly of the use of force in a given
area to enforce the monopoly of power in a given area (namely, the
wishes of the property owner). While they may have argued that this
was "defence of liberty," in reality it is defence of power and
authority.
What about if we just look at the political aspects of his ideas?
Did Herbert actually advocate anarchism? No, far from it. He clearly
demanded a minimal state based on voluntary taxation. The state would not use force of any kind,
"except for purposes of restraining force." He argued that in
his system, while "the state should compel no services and exact no
payments by force," it "should be free to conduct many useful
undertakings . . . in competition with all voluntary agencies . . .
in dependence on voluntary payments." [Herbert, Op. Cit.] As such,
"the state" would remain and unless he is using the term "state"
in some highly unusual way, it is clear that he means a system
where individuals live under a single elected government as their
common law maker, judge and defender within a given territory.
This becomes clearer once we look at how the state would be organised.
In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss
the franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a
voluntary "income tax," anyone "paying it would have the right
to vote; those who did not pay it would be -- as is just --
without the franchise. There would be no other tax." The law
would be strictly limited, of course, and the "government . . .
must confine itself simply to the defense of life and property,
whether as regards internal or external defense." In other words,
Herbert was a minimal statist, with his government elected by a
majority of those who choose to pay their income tax and funded
by that (and by any other voluntary taxes they decided to pay).
Whether individuals and companies could hire their own private
police in such a regime is irrelevant in determining whether it
is an anarchy.
This can be best seen by comparing Herbert with Ayn Rand. No one
would ever claim Rand was an anarchist, yet her ideas were extremely
similar to Herbert's. Like Herbert, Rand supported laissez-faire
capitalism and was against the "initiation of force." Like Herbert,
she extended this principle to favour a government funded by voluntary
means ["Government Financing in a Free Society," The Virtue of
Selfishness, pp. 116-20] Moreover, like Herbert, she explicitly
denied being an anarchist and, again like Herbert, thought the idea
of competing defence agencies ("governments") would result in chaos.
The similarities with Herbert are clear, yet no "anarcho"-capitalist
would claim that Rand was an anarchist, yet they do claim that Herbert
was.
This position is, of course, deeply illogical and flows from the
non-anarchist nature of "anarcho"-capitalism. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
when Rothbard discusses the ideas of the "voluntaryists" he fails to
address the key issue of who determines the laws being enforced in
society. For Rothbard, the key issue is who is enforcing the law,
not where that law comes from (as long, of course, as it is a law
code he approves of). The implications of this is significant, as
it implies that "anarchism" need not be opposed to either the state
nor government! This can be clearly seen from Rothbard's analysis of
voluntary taxation.
Rothbard, correctly, notes that Herbert advocated voluntary taxation as
the means of funding a state whose basic role was to enforce Lockean
property rights. For Rothbard, the key issue was not who determines
the law but who enforces it. For Rothbard, it should be privatised
police and courts and he suggests that the "voluntary taxationists
have never attempted to answer this problem; they have rather stubbornly
assumed that no one would set up a competing defence agency within a
State's territorial limits." If the state did bar such firms, then
that system is not a genuine free market. However, "if the government
did permit free competition in defence service, there would soon no
longer be a central government over the territory. Defence agencies,
police and judicial, would compete with one another in the same
uncoerced manner as the producers of any other service on the market."
[Power and Market, p. 122 and p. 123]
However, this misses the point totally. The key issue that Rothbard
ignores is who determines the laws which these private "defence" agencies
would enforce. If the laws are determined by a central government, then
the fact that citizen's can hire private police and attend private courts
does not stop the regime being statist. We can safely assume Rand, for
example, would have had no problem with companies providing private security
guards or the hiring of private detectives within the context of her
minimal state. Ironically, Rothbard stresses the need for such a monopoly
legal system:
So if you violate the "absolute law" defending (absolute) property rights
then you would be in trouble. The problem now lies in determining who sets that
law. Rothbard is silent on how his system of monopoly laws are determined
or specified. The "voluntaryists" did propose a solution, namely a central
government elected by the majority of those who voluntarily decided to pay
an income tax. In the words of Herbert:
And all Rothbard is concerned over private cops would exist or not! This
lack of concern over the existence of the state and government flows from
the strange fact that "anarcho"-capitalists commonly use the term "anarchism"
to refer to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion.
Notice that government does not play a part in this definition, thus
Rothbard can analyse Herbert's politics without commenting on who
determines the law his private "defence" agencies enforce. For Rothbard,
"an anarchist society" is defined "as one where there is no legal possibility
for coercive aggression against the person and property of any individual." He
then moved onto the state, defining that as an "institution which possesses
one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires
its income by the physical coercion known as 'taxation'; and (2) it acquires
and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defence service
(police and courts) over a given territorial area." ["Society without a State",
in Nomos XIX, Pennock and Chapman (eds.)., p. 192]
This is highly unusual definition of "anarchism," given that it utterly fails to
mention or define government. This, perhaps, is understandable as any attempt
to define it in terms of "monopoly of decision-making power" results in showing
that capitalism is statist (see section 1 for a summary). The key issue here
is the term "legal possibility." That suggestions a system of laws which
determine what is "coercive aggression" and what constitutes what is and what
is not legitimate "property." Herbert is considered by "anarcho"-capitalists as
one of them. Which brings us to a strange conclusion, that for
"anarcho"-capitalists you can have a system of "anarchism" in which there is
a government and state -- as long as the state does not impose taxation nor
stop private police forces from operating!
As Rothbard argues "if a government based on voluntary taxation permits free
competition, the result will be the purely free-market system . . . The previous
government would now simply be one competing defence agency among many on the
market." [Power and Market, p. 124] That the government is specifying what
is and is not legal does not seem to bother him or even cross his mind. Why
should it, when the existence of government is irrelevant to his definition
of anarchism and the state? That private police are enforcing a monopoly law
determined by the government seems hardly a step in the right direction nor
can it be considered as anarchism. Perhaps this is unsurprising, for under
his system there would be "a basic, common Law Code" which "all would have to
abide by" as well as "some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority
consensus in society . . . whose decision will be accepted by the great
majority of the public." ["Society without a State," Op. Cit., p. 205]
At least Herbert is clear that this would be a government system, unlike
Rothbard who assumes a monopoly law but seems to think that this is not a
government or a state. As David Wieck argued, this is illogical for
according to Rothbard "all 'would have to' conform to the same legal
code" and this can only be achieved by means of "the forceful action
of adherents to the code against those who flout it" and so "in his
system there would stand over against every individual the legal authority
of all the others. An individual who did not recognise private property as
legitimate would surely perceive this as a tyranny of law, a tyranny of the
majority or of the most powerful -- in short, a hydra-headed state. If the
law code is itself unitary, then this multiple state might be said to have
properly a single head -- the law . . . But it looks as though one might
still call this 'a state,' under Rothbard's definition, by satisfying de
facto one of his pair of sufficient conditions: 'It asserts and usually
obtains a coerced monopoly of provision of defence service (police and
courts) over a given territorial area' . . . Hobbes's individual sovereign
would seem to have become many sovereigns -- with but one law, however, and
in truth, therefore, a single sovereign in Hobbes's more important sense of
the latter term. One might better, and less confusingly, call this a
libertarian state than an anarchy." ["Anarchist Justice", in Nomos XIX,
Pennock and Chapman (eds.)., pp. 216-7]
The obvious recipients of the coercion of the new state would be those who
rejected the authority of their bosses and landlords, those who reject the
Lockean property rights Rothbard and Herbert hold dear. In such cases, the
rebels and any "defence agency" (like, say, a union) which defended them
would be driven out of business as it violated the law of the land. How
this is different from a state banning competing agencies is hard to
determine. This is a "difficulty" argues Wieck, which "results from the
attachment of a principle of private property, and of unrestricted
accumulation of wealth, to the principle of individual liberty. This
increases sharply the possibility that many reasonable people who respect
their fellow men and women will find themselves outside the law because
of dissent from a property interpretation of liberty." Similarly, there is
the economic results of capitalism. "One can imagine," Wieck continues,
"that those who lose out badly in the free competition of Rothbard's economic
system, perhaps a considerable number, might regard the legal authority as an
alien power, state for them, based on violence, and might be quite unmoved by
the fact that, just as under nineteenth century capitalism, a principle of
liberty was the justification for it all." [Op. Cit., p. 217 and pp. 217-8]
As can be seen, Hart's account of the history of "anti-state" liberalism
is flawed. Godwin is included only by ignoring his views on property,
views which in many ways reflects the later "socialist" (i.e.
anarchist) analysis of Proudhon. He then discusses a few individuals
who were alone in their opinions even within extreme free market right
and all of whom knew of anarchism and explicitly rejected the name for
their respective ideologies. In fact, they preferred the term "government"
to describe their systems which, on the face of it, would be hard to
reconcile with the usual "anarcho"-capitalist definition of anarchism
as being "no government." Hart's discussion of individualist anarchism
is equally flawed, failing to discuss their economic views (just as
well, as its links to "left-wing" anarchism would be obvious).
However, the similarities of Molinari's views with what later became
known as "anarcho"-capitalism are clear. Hart notes that with Molinari's
death in 1912, "liberal anti-statism virtually disappeared until it was
rediscovered by the economist Murray Rothbard in the late 1950's"
["Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part
III", Op. Cit., p. 88] While this fringe is somewhat bigger than
previously, the fact remains that the ideas expounded by Rothbard
are just as alien to the anarchist tradition as Molinari's. It
is a shame that Rothbard, like his predecessors, did not call
his ideology something other than anarchism. Not only would it have
been more accurate, it would also have lead to much less confusion
and no need to write this section of the FAQ! As it stands, the
only reason why "anarcho"-capitalism is considered a form of "anarchism"
by some is because one person (Rothbard) decided to steal the
name of a well established and widespread political and social theory
and movement and apply it to an ideology with little, if anything,
in common with it.
As Hart inadvertently shows, it is not a firm base to build a claim.
That anyone can consider "anarcho"-capitalism as anarchist simply
flows from a lack of knowledge about anarchism. As numerous anarchists
have argued. For example, "Rothbard's conjunction of anarchism with
capitalism," according to David Wieck, "results in a conception that is
entirely outside the mainstream of anarchist theoretical writings or social
movements . . . this conjunction is a self-contradiction." He stressed that
"the main traditions of anarchism are entirely different. These traditions,
and theoretical writings associated with them, express the perspectives and
the aspirations, and also, sometimes, the rage, of the oppressed people in
human society: not only those economically oppressed, although the major
anarchist movements have been mainly movements of workers and peasants,
but also those oppressed by power in all those social dimensions . . .
including of course that of political power expressed in the state." In
other words, "anarchism represents . . . a moral commitment (Rothbard's
anarchism I take to be diametrically opposite)." ["Anarchist Justice", in Nomos XIX,
Pennock and Chapman (eds.), p. 215, p. 229 and p. 234]
It is a shame that some academics consider only the word Rothbard uses
as relevant rather than the content and its relation to anarchist theory
and history. If they did, they would soon realise that the expressed
opposition of so many anarchists to "anarcho"-capitalism is something
which cannot be ignored or dismissed. In other words, a "right-wing"
anarchist cannot and does not exist, no matter how often they use that
word to describe their ideology. As Bob Black put it, "a right-wing
anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own
satisfaction by calling it something else . . . They don't denounce what
the state does, they just object to who's doing it." [Libertarian as
Conservative]
The reason is simple. Anarchist economics and politics cannot be artificially
separated, they are linked. Godwin and Proudhon did not stop their
analysis at the state. They extended it the social relationships produced
by inequality of wealth, i.e. economic power as well as political power.
To see why, we need only consult Rothbard's work. As noted in the
last
section, for Rothbard the key issue with the "voluntary taxationists"
was not who determined the "body of absolute law" but rather who enforced
it. In his discussion, he argued that a democratic "defence agency" is
at a disadvantage in his "free market" system. As he put it:
Notice how he assumes that both a co-operative and corporation would be
"equal before the law." But who determines that law? Obviously not a
democratically elected government, as the idea of "one person, one vote"
in determining the common law all are subject to is "inefficient." Nor does
he think, like the individualist anarchists, that the law would be judged
by juries along with the facts. As we note in
section 1.4, he rejects
that in favour of it being determined by "Libertarian lawyers and jurists."
Thus the law is unchangeable by ordinary people and enforced by private
defence agencies hired to protect the liberty and property of the owning
class. In the case of a capitalist economy, this means defending the
power of landlords and capitalists against rebel tenants and workers.
This means that Rothbard's "common Law Code" will be determined, interpreted,
enforced and amended by corporations based on the will of the majority of
shareholders, i.e. the rich. That hardly seems likely to produce equality
before the law. As he argues in a footnote:
So if the law is determined by the defence agencies and courts then it
will be determined by those who have invested most in these companies. As
it is unlikely that the rich will invest in defence firms which do not
support their property rights, power, profits and definition of property
rights, it is clear that agencies which favour the wealthy will survive
on the market. The idea that market demand will counter this class rule
seems unlikely, given Rothbard's own argument. After all, in order to
compete successfully you need more than demand, you need source of
investment. If co-operative defence agencies do form, they will be at
a market disadvantage due to lack of investment. As argued in
section J.5.12, even though co-operatives are more efficient than capitalist
firms lack of investment (caused by the lack of control by capitalists
Rothbard notes) stops them replacing wage slavery. Thus capitalist wealth
and power inhibits the spread of freedom in production. If we apply his
own argument to Rothbard's system, we suggest that the market in "defence"
will also stop the spread of more libertarian associations thanks to
capitalist power and wealth. In other words, like any market, Rothbard's
"defence" market will simply reflect the interests of the elite, not
the masses.
Moreover, we can expect any democratic defence agency (like a union) to
support, say, striking workers or squatting tenants, to be crushed. This
is because, as Rothbard stresses, all "defence" firms would be expected
to apply the "common" law, as written by "Libertarian lawyers and jurists."
If they did not they would quickly be labelled "outlaw" agencies and crushed
by the others. Ironically, Tucker would join Bakunin and Kropotkin in an
"anarchist" court accused to violating "anarchist" law by practising and
advocating "occupancy and use" rather than the approved Rothbardian property
rights. Even if these democratic "defence" agencies could survive and not
be driven out of the market by a combination of lack of investment and
violence due to their "outlaw" status, there is another problem. As we
discussed in section 1, landlords and capitalists have a monopoly of
decision making power over their property. As such, they can simply refuse
to recognise any democratic agency as a legitimate defence association and
use the same tactics perfected against unions to ensure that it does not
gain a foothold in their domain (see section 6 for more details).
Clearly, then, a "right-wing" anarchism is impossible as any system based
on capitalist property rights will simply be an oligarchy run by and for
the wealthy. As Rothbard notes, any defence agency based on democratic
principles will not survive in the "market" for defence simply because it
does not allow the wealthy to control it and its decisions. Little
wonder Proudhon argued that laissez-faire capitalism meant "the victory
of the strong over the weak, of those who own property over those who own
nothing." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 259]
7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?
No, of course not. Yet according to "anarcho"-capitalism, it is.
This can be seen from the ideas of Gustave de Molinari.
"In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march up
to the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn. . . The machine guns
of the Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company's Service Department
killed [four] and wounded over a score of others. . . Ford was
fundamentally and entirely opposed to trade unions. The idea of
working men questioning his prerogatives as an owner was outrageous
. . . [T]he River Rouge plant. . . was dominated by the autocratic
regime of Bennett's service men. Bennett . . organise[d] and train[ed]
the three and a half thousand private policemen employed by Ford. His
task was to maintain discipline amongst the work force, protect Ford's
property [and power], and prevent unionisation. . . Frank Murphy,
the mayor of Detroit, claimed that 'Henry Ford employs some of the
worst gangsters in our city.' The claim was well based. Ford's
Service Department policed the gates of his plants, infiltrated
emergent groups of union activists, posed as workers to spy on
men on the line. . . Under this tyranny the Ford worker had no
security, no rights. So much so that any information about the
state of things within the plant could only be freely obtained
from ex-Ford workers." [Huw Beynon, Working for Ford, pp. 29-30]
"their differences in economic theory were considerable, and it is probably
for this reason that Molinari refused to call himself an anarchist in spite
of their many similarities in political theory. Molinari refused to accept
the socialist economic ideas of Proudhon . . . in Molinari's mind, the term
'anarchist' was intimately linked with socialist and statist economic views."
[Op. Cit., p. 415]
"In spite of his protestations to the contrary, Molinari should
be considered an anarchist thinker. His attack on the state's
monopoly of defence must surely warrant the description of
anarchism. His reluctance to accept this label stemmed from the
fact that the socialists had used it first to describe a form
of non-statist society which Molinari definitely opposed. Like
many original thinkers, Molinari had to use the concepts developed
by others to describe his theories. In his case, he had come to
the same political conclusions as the communist anarchists although
he had been working within the liberal tradition, and it is
therefore not surprising that the terms used by the two schools
were not compatible. It would not be until the latter half of the
twentieth century that radical, free-trade liberals would use the
word 'anarchist' to describe their beliefs." [Op. Cit., p. 416]
7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?
Of course not, but ironically this is the conclusion arrived at
by Hart's analyst of the British "voluntaryists," particularly
Auberon Herbert. Voluntaryism was a fringe part of the right-wing
individualist movement inspired by Herbert Spencer, a spokesman
for free market capitalism in the later half of the nineteenth
century. As with Molinari, there is a problem with presenting
this ideology as anarchist, namely that its leading light,
Herbert, explicitly rejected the label "anarchist."
"While 'the government' would cease to exist, the same cannot be said for
a constitution or a rule of law, which, in fact, would take on in the free
society a far more important function than at present. For the freely
competing judicial agencies would have to be guided by a body of absolute
law to enable them to distinguish objectively between defence and invasion.
This law, embodying elaborations upon the basic injunction to defend person
and property from acts of invasion, would be codified in the basic legal code.
Failure to establish such a code of law would tend to break down the free
market, for then defence against invasion could not be adequately achieved."
[Op. Cit., p. 123-4]
"We agree that there must be a central agency to deal with crime - an
agency that defends the liberty of all men, and employs force against
the uses of force; but my central agency rests upon voluntary support,
whilst Mr. Levy's central agency rests on compulsory support."
[quoted by Carl Watner, "The English Individualists As They Appear
In Liberty," pp. 191-211, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of
Liberty, p. 194]
7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?
Hart, of course, mentions the individualist anarchists, calling Tucker's
ideas "laissez faire liberalism." [Op. Cit., p. 87] However, Tucker
called his ideas "socialism" and presented a left-wing critique of most
aspects of liberalism, particularly its Lockean based private property
rights. Tucker based much of his ideas on property on Proudhon, so if
Hart dismisses the latter as a socialist then this must apply to the
former. Given that he notes that there are "two main kinds of anarchist
thought," namely "communist anarchism which denies the right of an
individual to seek profit, charge rent or interest and to own property"
and a "'right-wing' proprietary anarchism, which vigorously defends
these rights" then Tucker, like Godwin, would have to be placed in the
"left-wing" camp. ["Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal
Tradition: Part II", Op. Cit., p. 427] Tucker, after all, argued that
he aimed for the end of profit, interest and rent and attacked private
property in land and housing beyond "occupancy and use."
"It would, in fact, be competing at a severe disadvantage, having been
established on the principle of 'democratic voting.' Looked at as a
market phenomenon, 'democratic voting' (one vote per person) is simply
the method of the consumer 'co-operative.' Empirically, it has been
demonstrated time and again that co-operatives cannot compete successfully
against stock-owned companies, especially when both are equal before the
law. There is no reason to believe that co-operatives for defence would
be any more efficient. Hence, we may expect the old co-operative government
to 'wither away' through loss of customers on the market, while joint-stock
(i.e., corporate) defence agencies would become the prevailing market form."
"There is a strong a priori reason for believing that corporations will be
superior to co-operatives in any given situation. For if each owner receives
only one vote regardless of how much money he has invested in a project
(and earnings are divided in the same way), there is no incentive to invest
more than the next man; in fact, every incentive is the other way. This
hampering of investment militates strongly against the co-operative form."