            Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

   Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably
   come across people calling themselves libertarians but arguing from a
   right-wing, pro-capitalist perspective. For most Europeans this is
   weird, as in Europe the term "libertarian" is almost always used in
   conjunction with "socialist" or "communist." In the US, though, the
   Right has partially succeeded in appropriating this term for itself.
   Even stranger, however, is that a few of these right-wingers have
   started calling themselves "anarchists" in what must be one of the
   finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language:
   'Anarcho-capitalist'!!

   Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to allow their foolishness
   to go unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to
   anarchism. That's what this section of the anarchist FAQ is for, to
   show why the claims of these "anarchist" capitalists are false.
   Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist and any "anarchism" that
   claims otherwise cannot be part of the anarchist tradition. So this
   section of the FAQ does not reflect some kind of debate within
   anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between
   anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways this debate
   mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer, an English
   pro-capitalist, minimal statist, at the turn the 19th century and, as
   such, it is hardly new.

   The "anarcho"-capitalist argument hinges on using the dictionary
   definition of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy" - they try to define
   anarchism as being "opposition to government," and nothing else.
   However, dictionaries are hardly politically sophisticated and their
   definitions rarely reflect the wide range of ideas associated with
   political theories and their history. Thus the dictionary "definition"
   is anarchism will tend to ignore its consistent views on authority,
   exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas easily discovered if
   actual anarchist texts are read). And, of course, many dictionaries
   "define" anarchy as "chaos" or "disorder" but we never see
   "anarcho"-capitalists use that particular definition!

   And for this strategy to work, a lot of "inconvenient" history and
   ideas from all branches of anarchism must be ignored. From
   individualists like Spooner and Tucker to communists like Kropotkin and
   Malatesta, anarchists have always been anti-capitalist (see [1]section
   G for more on the anti-capitalist nature of individualist anarchism).
   Therefore "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the same sense
   that rain is not dry.

   Of course, we cannot stop the "anarcho"-capitalists using the words
   "anarcho", "anarchism" and "anarchy" to describe their ideas. The
   democracies of the west could not stop the Chinese Stalinist state
   calling itself the People's Republic of China. Nor could the social
   democrats stop the fascists in Germany calling themselves "National
   Socialists". Nor could the Italian anarcho-syndicalists stop the
   fascists using the expression "National Syndicalism". This does not
   mean that any of these movements actual name reflected their content --
   China is a dictatorship, not a democracy, the Nazi's were not
   socialists (capitalists made fortunes in Nazi Germany because it
   crushed the labour movement), and the Italian fascist state had nothing
   in common with anarcho-syndicalists ideas of decentralised, "from the
   bottom up" unions and the abolition of the state and capitalism.

   Therefore, just because someone uses a label it does not mean that they
   support the ideas associated with that label. And this is the case with
   "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas
   associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist
   anarchism which is often claimed as being a forefather of the
   ideology).

   All we can do is indicate why "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of the
   anarchist tradition and so has falsely appropriated the name. This
   section of the FAQ aims to do just that -- present the case why
   "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. We do this, in part, by
   indicating where they differ from genuine anarchists (on such essential
   issues as private property, equality, exploitation and opposition to
   hierarchy) In addition, we take the opportunity to present a general
   critique of right-libertarian claims from an anarchist perspective. In
   this way we show up why anarchists reject that theory as being opposed
   to liberty and anarchist ideals.

   We are covering this topic in an anarchist FAQ for three reasons.
   Firstly, the number of "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalists on the
   net means that those seeking to find out about anarchism may conclude
   that they are "anarchists" as well. Secondly, unfortunately, some
   academics and writers have taken their claims of being anarchists at
   face value and have included their ideology into general accounts of
   anarchism. These two reasons are obviously related and hence the need
   to show the facts of the matter. As we have extensively documented in
   earlier sections, anarchist theory has always been anti-capitalist.
   There is no relationship between anarchism and capitalism, in any form.
   Therefore, there is a need for this section in order to indicate
   exactly why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist. As will be quickly
   seen from our discussion, almost all anarchists who become aware of
   "anarcho"-capitalism quickly reject it as a form of anarchism (the
   better academic accounts do note that anarchists generally reject the
   claim, though). The last reason is to provide other anarchists with
   arguments and evidence to use against "anarcho"-capitalism and its
   claims of being a new form of "anarchism."

   So this section of the FAQ does not, as we noted above, represent some
   kind of "debate" within anarchism. It reflects the attempt by
   anarchists to reclaim the history and meaning of anarchism from those
   who are attempting to steal its name (just as right-wingers in America
   have attempted to appropriate the name "libertarian" for their
   pro-capitalist views, and by so doing ignore over 100 years of
   anti-capitalist usage). However, this section also serves two other
   purposes. Firstly, critiquing right-libertarian and
   "anarcho"-capitalist theories allows us to explain anarchist ones at
   the same time and indicate why they are better. Secondly, and more
   importantly, the "ideas" and "ideals" that underlie
   "anarcho"-capitalism are usually identical (or, at the very least,
   similar) to those of neo-liberalism. This was noted by Bob Black in the
   early 1980s, when a "wing of the Reaganist Right has obviously
   appropriated, with suspect selectivity, such libertarian themes as
   deregulation and voluntarism. Ideologues indignant that Reagan has
   travestied their principles. Tough shit! I notice that it's their
   principles, not mine, that he found suitable to travesty." [The
   Libertarian As Conservative] This was echoed by Noam Chomsky two
   decades later when while "nobody takes [right-wing libertarianism]
   seriously" as "everybody knows that a society that worked by . . .
   [its] principles would self-destruct in three seconds" the "only
   reason" why some people "pretend to take it seriously is because you
   can use it as a weapon." [Understanding Power, p. 200] As
   neo-liberalism is being used as the ideological basis of the current
   attack on the working class, critiquing "anarcho"-capitalism and
   right-libertarianism also allows use to build theoretical weapons to
   use to resist this attack and aid the class struggle.

   A few more points before beginning. When debating with "libertarian" or
   "anarchist" capitalists it's necessary to remember that while they
   claim "real capitalism" does not exist (because all existing forms of
   capitalism are statist), they will claim that all the good things we
   have -- advanced medical technology, consumer choice of products, etc.
   -- are nevertheless due to "capitalism." Yet if you point out any
   problems in modern life, these will be blamed on "statism." Since there
   has never been and never will be a capitalist system without some sort
   of state, it's hard to argue against this "logic." Many actually use
   the example of the Internet as proof of the power of "capitalism,"
   ignoring the fact that the state paid for its development before
   turning it over to companies to make a profit from it. Similar points
   can be made about numerous other products of "capitalism" and the world
   we live in. To artificially separate one aspect of a complex evolution
   fails to understand the nature and history of the capitalist system.

   In addition to this ability to be selective about the history and
   results of capitalism, their theory has a great "escape clause." If
   wealthy employers abuse their power or the rights of the working class
   (as they have always done), then they have (according to "libertarian"
   ideology) ceased to be capitalists! This is based upon the
   misperception that an economic system that relies on force cannot be
   capitalistic. This is very handy as it can absolve the ideology from
   blame for any (excessive) oppression which results from its practice.
   Thus individuals are always to blame, not the system that generated the
   opportunities for abuse they freely used.

   Anarchism has always been aware of the existence of "free market"
   capitalism, particularly its extreme (minimal state) wing, and has
   always rejected it. As we discuss in [2]section 7, anarchists from
   Proudhon onwards have rejected the idea of any similar aims and goals
   (and, significantly, vice versa). As academic Alan Carter notes,
   anarchist concern for equality as a necessary precondition for genuine
   freedom means "that is one very good reason for not confusing
   anarchists with liberals or economic 'libertarians' -- in other words,
   for not lumping together everyone who is in some way or another
   critical of the state. It is why calling the likes of Nozick
   'anarchists' is highly misleading." ["Some notes on 'Anarchism'", pp.
   141-5, Anarchist Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 143] So anarchists have
   evaluated "free market" capitalism and rejected it as non-anarchist for
   over 150 years. Attempts by "anarcho"-capitalism to say that their
   system is "anarchist" flies in the face of this long history of
   anarchist analysis. That some academics fall for their attempts to
   appropriate the anarchist label for their ideology is down to a false
   premise: it "is judged to be anarchism largely because some
   anarcho-capitalists say they are 'anarchists' and because they
   criticise the State." [Peter Sabatini, Social Anarchism, no. 23, p.
   100]

   More generally, we must stress that most (if not all) anarchists do not
   want to live in a society just like this one but without state coercion
   and (the initiation of) force. Anarchists do not confuse "freedom" with
   the "right" to govern and exploit others nor with being able to change
   masters. It is not enough to say we can start our own (co-operative)
   business in such a society. We want the abolition of the capitalist
   system of authoritarian relationships, not just a change of bosses or
   the possibility of little islands of liberty within a sea of capitalism
   (islands which are always in danger of being flooded and our activity
   destroyed). Thus, in this section of the FAQ, we analysis many
   "anarcho"-capitalist claims on their own terms (for example, the
   importance of equality in the market or why capitalism cannot be
   reformed away by exchanges on the capitalist market) but that does not
   mean we desire a society nearly identical to the current one. Far from
   it, we want to transform this society into one more suited for
   developing and enriching individuality and freedom. But before we can
   achieve that we must critically evaluate the current society and point
   out its basic limitations.

   Finally, we dedicate this section of the FAQ to those who have seen the
   real face of "free market" capitalism at work: the working men and
   women (anarchist or not) murdered in the jails and concentration camps
   or on the streets by the hired assassins of capitalism.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secGcon.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append137.html
