            Section F - 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 people outside of
   North America, this is weird as the term "libertarian" is almost always
   used in conjunction with "socialist" or "communist" (particularly in
   Europe and, it should be stressed, historically in America). In the US,
   though, the Right has partially succeeded in appropriating the term
   "libertarian" for itself. Even stranger 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 let their foolishness to
   go unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to
   anarchism. This is what this section of the 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. It is important to stress that
   anarchist opposition to the so-called capitalist "anarchists" do 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 capitalist minimal statist)
   at the turn the 19th century and, as such, it is hardly new.

   At that time, people like Spencer tended to call themselves "liberals"
   while, as Bookchin noted, "libertarian" was "a term created by
   nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American
   right-wing proprietarians." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] David
   Goodway concurs, stating that "libertarian" has been "frequently
   employed by anarchists" as an alternative name for our politics for
   over a century. However, the "situation has been vastly complicated in
   recent decades with the rise of . . . extreme right-wing laissez-faire
   philosophy . . . and [its advocates] adoption of the words
   'libertarian' and 'libertarianism.' It has therefore now become
   necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the
   left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." [Anarchist Seeds
   Beneath the Snow, p. 4] This appropriation of the term "libertarian" by
   the right not only has bred confusion, but also protest as anarchists
   have tried to point out the obvious, namely that capitalism is marked
   by authoritarian social relationships and so there are good reasons for
   anarchism being a fundamentally anti-capitalist socio-political theory
   and movement. That a minority of the right "libertarians" have also
   tried to appropriate "anarchist" to describe their authoritarian
   politics is something almost all anarchists reject and oppose.

   That the vast majority of anarchists reject the notion of
   "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism is an inconvenient fact for
   its supporters. Rather than address this, they generally point to the
   fact that some academics state that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of
   anarchism and include it in their accounts of our movement and ideas.
   That some academics do this is true, but irrelevant. What counts is
   what anarchists think anarchism is. To place the opinions of academics
   above that of anarchists implies that anarchists know nothing about
   anarchism, that we do not really understand the ideas we advocate but
   academics do! Yet this is the implication. As such the near universal
   rejection of "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism within
   anarchist circles is significant. However, it could be argued that as a
   few anarchists (usually individualist ones, but not always) do admit
   "anarcho"-capitalism into our movement that this (very small) minority
   shows that the majority are "sectarian." Again, this is not convincing
   as some individuals in any movement will hold positions which the
   majority reject and which are, sometimes, incompatible with the basic
   principles of the movement (Proudhon's sexism and racism are obvious
   examples). Equally, given that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists
   have fundamentally different analyses and goals it is hardly
   "sectarian" to point this out (being "sectarian" in politics means
   prioritising differences and rivalries with politically close groups).

   Some scholars do note the difference. For example, Jeremy Jennings, in
   his excellent overview of anarchist theory and history, argues that it
   is "hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] --
   with roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist
   only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."
   ["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and
   Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 142] Barbara Goodwin reaches a similar
   conclusion, noting that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true place is in
   the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism for "[w]hile
   condemning absolutely state coercion, they tacitly condone the economic
   and interpersonal coercion which would prevail in a totally
   laissez-faire society. Most anarchists share the egalitarian ideal with
   socialists: anarcho-capitalists abhor equality and socialism equally."
   [Using Political Ideas, p. 138]

   Sadly, these seem to be the minority in academic circles as most are
   happy to discuss right-"libertarian" ideology as a subclass of
   anarchism in spite of there being so little in common between the two.
   Their inclusion does really seem to derive from the fact that
   "anarcho"-capitalists call themselves anarchists and the academics take
   this at face value. Yet, as one anarchist notes, having a "completely
   fluid definition of anarchism, allows for anyone and anything to be
   described as such, no matter how authoritarian and anti-social."
   [Benjamin Franks, "Mortal Combat", pp. 4-6, A Touch of Class, no. 1, p.
   5] Also, given that many academics approach anarchism from what could
   be termed the "dictionary definition" methodology rather than as a
   political movement approach there is a tendency for
   "anarcho"-capitalist claims to be taken at face value. As such, it is
   useful to stress that anarchism is a social movement with a long
   history and while its adherents have held divergent views, it has never
   been limited to simply opposition to the state (i.e. the dictionary
   definition).

   The "anarcho"-capitalist argument that it is a form of anarchism hinges
   on using the dictionary definition of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy."
   They try to define anarchism as being "opposition to government," and
   nothing else. Of course, many (if not most) dictionaries "define"
   anarchy as "chaos" or "disorder" but we never see "anarcho"-capitalists
   use those particular definitions! Moreover, and this should go without
   saying, 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"
   of anarchism will tend to ignore its consistent views on authority,
   exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas easily discovered if
   actual anarchist texts are read). And for this strategy to work, a lot
   of "inconvenient" history and ideas from all branches of anarchism must
   be ignored. From individualists like Tucker to communists like
   Kropotkin and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist
   movement. Therefore "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the
   same sense that rain is not dry.

   Significantly, the inventor of the term "anarcho"-capitalism, Murray
   Rothbard had no impact on the anarchist movement even in North America.
   His influence, unsurprisingly, was limited to the right, particularly
   in so-called "libertarian" circles. The same can be said of
   "anarcho"-capitalism in general. This can be seen from the way Rothbard
   is mentioned in Paul Nursey-Bray's bibliography on anarchist thinkers.
   This is an academic book, a reference for libraries. Rothbard is
   featured, but the context is very suggestive. The book includes
   Rothbard in a section titled "On the Margins of Anarchist Theory." His
   introduction to the Rothbard section is worth quoting:

     "Either the inclusion or the omission of Rothbard as an anarchist is
     likely, in one quarter or another, to be viewed as contentious.
     Here, his Anarcho-Capitalism is treated as marginal, since, while
     there are linkages with the tradition of individualist anarchism,
     there is a dislocation between the mutualism and communitarianism of
     that tradition and the free market theory, deriving from Ludwig von
     Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, that underpins Rothbard's political
     philosophy, and places him in the modern Libertarian tradition."
     [Anarchist Thinkers and Thought, p. 133]

   This is important, for while Rothbard (like other
   "anarcho"-capitalists) appropriates some aspects of individualist
   anarchism he does so in a highly selective manner and places what he
   does take into an utterly different social environment and political
   tradition. So while there are similarities between both systems, there
   are important differences as we will discuss in detail in [1]section G
   along with the anti-capitalist nature of individualist anarchism (i.e.
   those essential bits which Rothbard and his followers ignore or
   dismiss). Needless to say, Nursey-Bray does not include
   "anarcho"-capitalism in his discussion of anarchist schools of thought
   in the bibliography's introduction.

   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 their names 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-syndicalist ideas of decentralised, "from the bottom up" unions
   and the abolition of the state and capitalism.

   It could be argued (and it has) that the previous use of a word does
   not preclude new uses. Language changes and, as such, it is possible
   for a new kind of "anarchism" to develop which has little, or no,
   similarities with what was previously known as anarchism. Equally, it
   could be said that new developments of anarchism have occurred in the
   past which were significantly different from old versions (for example,
   the rise of communist forms of anarchism in opposition to Proudhon's
   anti-communist mutualism). Both arguments are unconvincing. The first
   just makes a mockery of the concept of language and breeds confusion.
   If people start calling black white, it does not make it so. Equally,
   to call an ideology with little in common with a known and long
   established socio-political theory and movement the same name simply
   results in confusion. No one takes, say, fascists seriously when they
   call their parties "democratic" nor would we take Trotskyists seriously
   if they started to call themselves "libertarians" (as some have started
   to do). The second argument fails to note that developments within
   anarchism built upon what came before and did not change its
   fundamental (socialistic) basis. Thus communist and collectivist
   anarchism are valid forms of anarchism because they built upon the key
   insights of mutualism rather than denying them.

   A related defence of "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism is the
   suggestion that the problem is one of terminology. This argument is
   based on noting that "anarcho"-capitalists are against "actually
   existing" capitalism and so "we must distinguish between 'free-market
   capitalism' . . . and 'state capitalism' . . . The two are as different
   as day and night." [Rothbard, The Logic of Action II, p. 185] It would
   be churlish indeed to point out that the real difference is that one
   exists while the other has existed only in Rothbard's head. Yet point
   it out we must, for the simple fact is that not only do
   "anarcho"-capitalists use the word anarchism in an unusual way (i.e. in
   opposition to what has always been meant by the term), they also use
   the word capitalism in a like manner (i.e., to refer to something that
   has never existed). It should go without saying that using words like
   "capitalism" and "anarchism" in ways radically different to traditional
   uses cannot help but provoke confusion. Yet is it a case that
   "anarcho"-capitalists have simply picked a bad name for their ideology?
   Hardly, as its advocates will quickly rush to defend exploitation
   (non-labour income) and capitalist property rights as well as the
   authoritarian social structures produced with them. Moreover, as good
   capitalist economists the notion of an economy without interest, rent
   and profit is considered highly inefficient and so unlikely to develop.
   As such, their ideology is rooted in a perspective and an economy
   marked by wage labour, landlords, banking and stock markets and so
   hierarchy, oppression and exploitation, i.e. a capitalist one.

   So they have chosen their name well as it shows in clear light how far
   they are from the anarchist tradition. As such, almost all anarchists
   would agree with long-time anarchist activist Donald Rooum's comment
   that "self-styled 'anarcho-capitalists' (not to be confused with
   anarchists of any persuasion) [simply] want the state abolished as a
   regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists."
   They are "wrongly self-styled 'anarchists'" because they "do not oppose
   capitalist oppression" while genuine anarchists are "extreme
   libertarian socialists." [What Is Anarchism?, p. 7, pp. 12-13 and p.
   10] As we stress in [2]section F.1, "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose
   the hierarchies and exploitation associated with capitalism (wage
   labour and landlordism) and, consequently, have no claim to the term
   "anarchist." 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, usually by "anarcho"-capitalists, as
   being a forefather of the ideology).

   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 in general accounts of
   anarchism (the better academic accounts do note that anarchists
   generally reject the claim). These two reasons are obviously related
   and hence the need to show the facts of the matter. 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. However, our discussion also
   serves two other purposes. Firstly, critiquing right "libertarian"
   theories allows us to explain anarchist ones at the same time and
   indicate why they are better. Secondly, and more importantly, it shares
   many of the same assumptions and aims of neo-liberalism. This was noted
   by Bob Black in the early 1980s, when a "wing of the Reaganist Right .
   . . obviously appropriated, with suspect selectivity, such libertarian
   themes as deregulation and voluntarism. Ideologues indignate 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", pp. 141-8, The Abolition of Work and
   Other Essays, pp. 141-2] This was echoed by Noam Chomsky two decades
   later when he stated that "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 in the ruling elite "pretend to take it
   seriously is because you can use it as a weapon" in the class struggle
   [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 also allows us to build theoretical
   weapons to use to resist this attack and aid our side in the class war.

   The results of the onslaught of free(r) market capitalism along with
   anarchist criticism of "anarcho"-capitalism has resulted in some
   "anarcho"-capitalists trying to re-brand their ideology as "market
   anarchism." This, from their perspective, has two advantages. Firstly,
   it allows them to co-opt the likes of Tucker and Spooner (and,
   sometimes, even Proudhon!) into their family tree as all these
   supported markets (while systematically attacking capitalism).
   Secondly, it allows them to distance their ideology from the grim
   reality of neo-liberalism and the results of making capitalism more
   "free market." Simply put, going on about the benefits of "free market"
   capitalism while freer market capitalism is enriching the already
   wealthy and oppressing and impoverishing the many is hard going. Using
   the term "market anarchism" to avoid both the reality of anarchism's
   anti-capitalist core and the reality of the freer market capitalism
   they have helped produce makes sense in the marketplace of ideas (the
   term "blackwashing" seems appropriate here). The fact is that however
   laudable its stated aims, "anarcho"-capitalism is deeply flawed due to
   its simplistic nature and is easy to abuse on behalf of the economic
   oligarchy that lurks behind the rhetoric of economic textbooks in that
   "special case" so ignored by economists, namely reality.

   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 [3]section F.7, anarchists from
   Proudhon onwards have rejected it (and, significantly, vice versa). As
   academic Alan Carter notes, anarchist concern for equality as a
   necessary precondition for genuine freedom "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
   since the birth of anarchism and so 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 freedom
   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 replacing the state with
   private defence firms is simply changing the name of the state rather
   than abolishing it) 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.

   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.

   For more discussion on this issue, see the appendix [4]"Anarchism and
   'Anarcho'-capitalism"

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secGcon.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF1.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF7.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append1.html
