Defining capitalism
In a recent blog post, Anarcho acknowledges that capitalism does not equal the market.
I wonder what Anarcho would make of the notions that:
- capitalism (as a system of oppression) could be defined as the monopolization of capital, and…
- monopolization is always a state-driven process. [primitive accumulation, all the way down...]
Interesting that he quotes something by Murray from his pre-anarchist days to “prove” that Murray himself knew that he wasn’t “really” and anarchist.
“Significantly, Molinari never called himself an anarchist nor associated himself in any way with the movement — which means, I think, making him the “founder” of an anarchist school of though extremely problematic!”
In a similar way that the author extensively incorporates Marxist thought into his argument, and presumably, his own ideology, even though Marx was never an Anarchist?
@Royce — The word Marxist gets inaccurately tossed around so much as an epithet that I don’t see its use as typically conducive to good communication. A better comparison would be to Stirner, who also (if I recall correctly) never called himself an anarchist, yet is typically recognized as such by anarchists.
@BlackBloke — Actually, if I recall correctly, Rothbard is said to have first become an anarchist in 1950 and the piece mentioned is said to be “from the 1950’s”, so it’s most likely not from before he became a complete anti-statist. That said, anarchists (like any other normal people) change their minds about stuff all of the time. By, at least, the time of the New Banner interview circa 1970(?) he was using the word anarchist to describe himself, if I recall correctly.
Don’t really know why anyone bothers considering what Iain McKay thinks. He’s been caught lying so many times.
“Significantly, Molinari never called himself an anarchist nor associated himself in any way with the movement ”
So does the fact that Tucker considered “anarcho”-Kommunists to be human cockroaches mean he was not an anarchist on the grounds that he refused to “associate himself with the movement” (which apparently is centered around “anarcho”-communist and what they like, at the time they sure as hell didn’t like him)?
As Roderick mentioned, Tucker had no problem with calling people like Donisthorpe and Spooner anarchists, even though they disagreed with him about land ownership (he did not favor “occupancy and use” toward anything else and positively referred even to that as “private property”), so long as they wanted to get rid of the state. That’s why his own journal hailed Molinari as an anarchist, and I added that he also did the same for Auberon Herbert’s obituary.
That evaluation may be wrong or right, but it is the truth, and anyone who knows the history and tries to claim otherwise is lying, in his case so he can turn the classical Individualists into a political football.
I tried mentioning this once in a debate on Infoshop (well, I was debating, he was mainly tripping over his own British snobbery), and his response to continually repeat how these people over here are “socialists” and those people over there are “capitalists” over and over again with increasing digital volume and use of mid-sentence capitalization. I presume that’s what he would have to say to your post here.
So I brought up the existence of anarcho-capitalists like Konkin and David Friedman who proposed alternatives to the wage system (which actually puts them a foot up on most of the Individualists, who never opposed wage labor per se and only cared about payment levels). His response was that they didn’t count because then they were really socialists (although that’s NOT the position he took when he was arguing with Friedman over medieval Iceland. Funny how you won’t see these socialists mentioned anywhere in the “Anarchist” FAQ).
I really is hard to argue with “logic” like that. Even accepting his definitions, where’s the usefulness of retroactively superimposing a term that obviously has no categorical accuracy, accept as a toll for historical revision. That would be rather, oh, I don’t know, IDEOLOGICAL, not mention inductive reasoning masquerading as historical scholarship.
It’s also funny that he fights so hard against “post-left anarchists” to keep anarchism classified as left-wing, knowing(?) that it puts him in the same club as Bastiat, if he truly intends to keep historical definitions straight.
One wonders why he doesn’t think it’s so incriminating that Green, Spooner and Tolstoy refused to call themselves anarchists. And of course, there’s no mention of Proudhon’s more “capitalistic” contemporary, the self-proclaimed anarchist Anselme Bellegarrigue.
Interesting also that even though he puts things in block quotes, he never seems to be able to just quote the text straight through. He always has to break it up into sentence fragments and insert his own words in between, which has been found to change the original meaning on several occasions (i.e. your old post about Rockefeller become Duke of New York).
I perfectly agree with you. That author cites the historical usages of “anarchism” to justify his conception of it. He fallaciously appealed to authority. He wanted to monopolize the term, by citing the already flawed An Anarchist FAQ. That article has no content other than frivolously playing with definitions.
Not unusual for mutualists. In fact, all mutualists generally oppose “capitalism” while supporting the “free market.” They generally have a different conception of the “free market” than that of Rothbard. The mutualists associate the term “free market” with a decentralized system based on the use-and-occupancy of capital goods and land. Rothbard, however, associates the term “free market” as a system based on “sticky” (Lockean) property.
Therefore, the user “Anarcho” actually meant that no anarchist may support “sticky” ownership of capital and land. See this quote in that article:
That article denied Rothbard as an “anarchist,” but Brad himself did not deny that. It looks like Brad contradicted himself. Brad, who claims to support Rothbard, probably supports “sticky” ownership of capital and land. Brad linked to an article that argues against “sticky” ownership of capital and land, which contradicted his position.
In my opinion, I think Brad is being dishonest.
Well, no, because my own position is that Rothbard’s radical anti-state Lockeanism, when stringently applied and particularly in the context of a revolutionary scenario, would have results similar (but not identical) to the occupancy and use standard. I view Rothbard’s standard as a more precise second attempt at addressing the matter of justice in property, with the occupancy and use standard being a reasonably good first attempt (particularly in the historical context of the times it originated in).
“Beware of primary contributor and editor of “An anarchist FAQ”! HA HA HA…”
Well, the “An Anarchist FAQ” is a crock of shit, so…
“The mutualists associate the term “free market” with a decentralized system based on the use-and-occupancy of capital goods and land.”
Land less (except for Spooner), capital goods no, and for reasons that were more akin to Georgism than any consistent “occupancy and use” position like anarcho-communists like to pretend. Now of course, there are implications for that given their theories about banking and credit, but most never emphasized them, never saw them as essential, and some (like Dandy and Tucker) explicitly against them, using elitist rationales like “hierarchy is natural” and “some people are just naturally meant to be leaders and others followers” that would be complete anathema to social anarchists, if they knew about them.
Meanwhile on the “other side” you have people like Konkin, Friedman, Lefevre, Hess, Spencer and, to a lesser degree, Molinari and Donisthorpe, who took a more explicit stand against boss hierarchy from a different direction. But of course, they were “capitalists” so they don’t count, (except when it isn’t convenient, like during an Infoshop debate that other people can see).
And Brad, I though you might enjoy this poster put together by Darrin Knode for the ALL presence at Porcfest. It’s not quite finished yet, he still has to add two more people that are marked out by text. (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n314/thorsmitersaw/draft.jpg)
er, that should read “Land yes”, not “less”.
Brad,
Thank you for clarifying. Now, I know that why you linked to the mutualist article.
Soviet Onion,
Spooner was not a “mutualist” by any means, and has no influence from Proudhon. Lots of others also claim that “Spooner was a mutualist.” And I do not know where did they got this from.
Kevin Carson specifically promoted worker control of the means of production, and wants to legally forbid absentee ownership. Proudhon explicitly supported the use-and-occupancy of capital goods.
I see no reason to define “mutualism” in accord to these dead men. Tucker himself never described himself as a “mutualist.” Tucker has influence from Henry George, Josiah Warren, and Sean Pearl Andrews, which all of them, again, has never used the word “mutualism.” Associating the term “mutualism” to Tucker and Spooner seems arbitrary.
Anarcho-communists actually reject “occupancy and use,” and, by definition, prefer a moneyless gift economy.
Too vague of a statement. Konkin and Friedman do not want to legally forbid wage labor. Most non-anarchists feel negatively about their bosses too. Voluntarily opposing “wage labor” isn’t a mere “left-libertarian” phenomenon. If I could choose between wage labor and self-employment, I would choose self-employment too.
I could describe myself as an “agorist,” “voluntaryist,” or “market anarchist”; but these terms do not specifically distinguish between Lockean property or use-and-occupancy. For example, some “agorists” support use-and-occupancy of capital goods and land, and so does “market anarchist” too. I, myself, prefer Lockean property over use-and-occupancy, so I could describe my philosophy as “anarcho-mercantilism.”
“Anarcho-Mercantilist”, even “An Anarchist FAQ” makes a distinction between orthodox Proudhonian mutualism and individualist anarchism.
Do you know that “An Anarchist FAQ” argues that Benjamin Tucker was inconsistent anarchist appealing to Chomsky(!) definition of consistent anarchism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG4.html#secg42
Iain McKay (primary contributor and editor of “An anarchist FAQ”):
“I have my issues with individualist anarchism in the US form but at least they had a concept of what anarchism is (a libertarian form of socialism). I would call it “inconsistent” anarchism — and the key difference between it and “anarcho”-capitalism is that it can easily become consistent anarchism by consistently applying its own principles.”
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/11/center-for-stateless-society.html
I now understand “An Anarchist FAQ” classification of anarchism:
1. Consistent anarchism (anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-collectivism, Proudhonian mutualism, Chomskyism).
2. Inconsistent anarchism (individualist anarchism).
3. False anarchism (anarcho-capitalism, agorism, voluntaryism…).
This is bullshit and nothing more. I’m proud to be “inconsistent anarchist”. LOL
Tucker supported “occupancy and use” toward land, he did not favor “occupancy and use” toward anything else. He was influenced by Proudhon, but we can’t call him Proudhonian mutualist. Friedman position on natural rights is similar to a later Tucker position (no rights exist until they are created by contract, or something like that). Theoretically, Friedmanite anarchism can have a “occupancy and use”, “sticky” Lockean non-proviso property standart, or even some synthesis between both.
“Voluntarily opposing “wage labor” isn’t a mere “left-libertarian” phenomenon.”
I think that “occupancy and use” property standart toward land and capital goods, gives us voluntary society, where wage labor is neglible.
“Konkin and Friedman do not want to legally forbid wage labor.”
Carson, Tucker and Spooner also do not want to legally forbid wage labor.
Krugus,
The An Anarchist FAQ misquoted Tucker, inferring that Tucker wanted to illegalize rights. However, Tucker does not oppose “rights” in the legal sense. He advocated that men can freely form “legal rights” in a voluntary society. Tucker only rejected “rights” on the “ontological level.”
Thanks, I forgot to mention them.
I just had some uncertainties when interpreting this complex sentence. Does this imply that if society does not follow an “occupancy and use” standard, then it would “give us” an “involuntary society”? Do you define a “voluntary society” as a society which follows an “occupancy and use” standard? Or do you imply that an “occupancy and use” standard gives us an optimal society (as opposed to “voluntary society,” with “voluntary” defined as the opposition to “physical aggression”).
I can interpret the last clause of your sentence in two different ways. Does “where wage labor is negligible” mean that voluntarily opposing wage labor is negligible to becoming a “left-libertarian”? Or does it mean that a “voluntary society” entails a negligible amount of wage labor? I agree with the latter interpretation, but the former interpretation expresses a tautology. It depends on your definition of “left-libertarianism,” and specifically whether or not “left-libertarianism” necessitates a voluntary opposition to wage labor in addition to occupancy and use.
I find this statement confusing this way.
Regards,
Anarcho-Mercantilist
Black Bloke:
Brad:
For what it’s worth, the article that Anarcho is citing as his critical source (”Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’?”) is available online from Mises.org (has been for over a year now), which is almost certainly how he came across it, although, as per the usual AFAQ standards of scholarship when it comes to anarcho-capitalists, he doesn’t link to it. It’s the article in which Rothbard declares himself a “non-archist;” at the time his position was basically what Bob LeFevre was arguing for in the 1960s; that is, he had come out against the monopoly state as such (he explicitly argues against “limited government” in the article, and argues that “the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom”), but chose not to call himself an “Anarchist” because, at the time, he thought that “Anarchism” entailed either coercive collectivization, Proudhonian theories of interest, or Tolstoyan pacifism, all of which he rejected. By 1965 he had changed his mind and was speaking positively of anarchism and anarchists (see for example Liberty and the New Left, from Left and Right 1.2) as examples of libertarian politics, and by 1969 (see for example “Anarcho-Rightism” in Libertarian Forum 1.13) he was definitely using both “anarchism” simpliciter and “anarcho-capitalism” to describe his own views. Of course the big shift had partly to do with the fact that he had broken decisively from the Right and was hanging out with anarchists within the New Left; it also had partly to do with the fact that, based on the textual evidence, he seems to have read a lot more actual anarchist writing in between.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:
I don’t know off the top of my head whether or not Tucker ever specifically used the letters M-U-T-U-A-L-I-S-T as part of a description of his own views, but, just from a quick glance at materials I have on hand for electronic search, I am reminded that Tucker describes the economic principles he subscribes to (specifically, the cost principle and co-operative organization of capital) as “mutualism” and “mutualistic” in Mutualism in the Service of Capital (originally from Liberty, July 16, 1887; reprinted in Instead of a Book).
“He advocated that men can freely form “legal rights” in a voluntary society.”
Yes. It is similar to Friedman position.
“Does this imply that if society does not follow an “occupancy and use” standard, then it would “give us” an “involuntary society”?”
Not necessarily.
“Do you define a “voluntary society” as a society which follows an “occupancy and use” standard?”
No. I think that “occupancy and use” property standart is advantageous for workers (solves the labor problem) and creates prosperity. I support this on consequentialist grounds.
“Or does it mean that a “voluntary society” entails a negligible amount of wage labor?”
Not necessarily, but I prefer voluntary society which has negligible amount of wage labor. In my opinion, “occupancy and use” property standart gives us such a society. I believe that Konkinite “society of entrepreneurs and independent contractors” can be easily created with this property rights standart.