More on Rothbard the libertarian socialist
From Facebook discussions, lightly edited…
W: “…I’m trying to figure out how ‘we’re all socialists’ makes sense and fits with private ownership of property…”
Brad: I’m not against “private property” if you mean Rothbardian property theory.
With regard to the term “socialism”, reaching my view on this is a two or three step process.
1) First read Tucker’s State Socialism and Anarchism: HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
Tucker, a figure who remains an acknowledged “libertarian socialist” to this day, described how free market anarchism (generally) is socialism, but an utterly different sort of socialism from state socialism.
2) Read Rothbard’s The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economists View
In TSTD Rothbard outlined where his views diverge from Tuckers. Much of that is in terms of differences of analysis, opinion and rationale. The only difference in terms of actual political prescription is Rothbard’s natural law based ultra-radical, anti-state Lockean property theory.
3) The third step (if it doesn’t strike you immediately during step 2) is simply to compare the full implications of Rothbardian property theory, particularly as contextually modified by Konkin’s theories of revolution and class, [with usufruct ownership] and notice that the difference between it and usufruct ownership is to subtle to push Rothbard’s doctrine out of any definition of socialism that includes Tucker’s.
W: I’ll eventually get to reading all of that, but to short-circuit where I think you’re headed, NOTHING in a truly ancap society would prevent shared ownership, socialism, mutualism, communes, etc. But all such relationships would be voluntary, not imposed from above, the typical methodology for “sharing” resources.
Brad: Where do you think I’m heading? I agree with everything you said after that point.
With regard to where I’m heading…
I’ve already explained in other posts that the revolutionary redistribution of property would be an unavoidable consequence of the rise of a non-state system of law not beholden to fake grants of title to politically favored interests.
If property title under market anarchism would derive, as Rothbard asserted it ought to, from homesteading and/or exchange from the homesteader, this necessarily supposes state granted title to politically favored interests that never homesteaded what they supposedly “own” wouldn’t be protected.
If that’s where it’s suspected that I’m heading — well, I’m already there, and I stand by the reasoning I took as my route.
And, of course, there remains the matter of other types of stolen loot other than fake property title derived solely from political privilege.
For example, if I were on a jury, I would never vote to convict someone of bank robbery who “robbed” a federal reserve bank. Of course, they may have done *other* things as part of that act which I *would* consider crimes, but that would be a seperate matter.
I’ll add here at this point that the usual response by reactionary anti-market types is to assert that the revolutionary redistribution of property doesn’t address the problem of capitalist accumulation permanently because the difference between Rothbardian property theory and usufruct ownership is “sticky” title and the rise of a new system of capitalist oppression through monopoly of capital would then be inevitable.
Such critiques only beg the question, though, of where ruling class accumulation comes from. If you blame that on free exchange, despite the ample historical record of both direct statist expropriation and state granted privilege that indirectly funneled wealth to the ruling class, then you’re just assuming what you purport to demonstrate. Such fuzzy thinking is dangerous because it fails to distinguish accumulation in the sense of stolen loot from accumulation in the sense of simple savings derived from deferred consumption and prudent decision-making. If we fail to distinguish stolen capitalist loot from innocent capital, we then undermine through such inconsistency the case for the revolutionary redistribution of property in the first place — that people are due what’s rightfully theirs.
Share This
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James Tuttle. James Tuttle said: RT @bradspangler: More on Rothbard the libertarian socialist | http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1470 #anarchism [...]
“I’ve already explained in other posts that the revolutionary redistribution of property would be an unavoidable consequence of the rise of a non-state system of law not beholden to fake grants of title to politically favored interests.
If property title under market anarchism would derive, as Rothbard asserted it ought to, from homesteading and/or exchange from the homesteader, this necessarily supposes state granted title to politically favored interests that never homesteaded what they supposedly “own” wouldn’t
be protected.”
WRONG!
You leave out that Rothbard asserted thtat the benefit of the doubt goes to person holding the property. If I own property that I bought, and way back when it was stolen, but no one knows who is descended from the victims..than the benefit of the doubt, according to Rothbard, goes to me and my ownership. So no massive wealth redistribution.
So a provocative article, but not true. AC is not socialist. By the way, Rothbard is not the only AC out there, I sometimes prefer David Friedman’s version. I don’t think the right to property has to come from homesteading, just consensual accumulation.
http://cptacs.blogspot.com/
@morris — I left it out because it was not pertinent to what I was saying. If something that was originally stolen comes into your possession as an innocent recipient, you yourself *are* homesteading it at that point. If a legit original owner then presents themself, that means they have a superior claim to your own. But that has nothing to do with what I was saying, because the monopoly capitalist system of massive collusion between state and business does not leave corporations (and the statist plutocracy generally) as recipients of state largesse as innocent recipients of property. Their title is void in any ethical analysis.
I may be way off base here, but wouldn’t it make sense that in order to compare and contrast anarcho-capitalism and libertarian socialism to at least derive the definitions from a comparable source. In one post on this subject, “Re-stating the point: Rothbardian socialism,” you attempt to define capitalism “as the status quo and that it is oppressive in an economic sense as a result of the monopolization of capital.” However, when you define socialism, as done in this essay, you define it according to you own research and interpretation of the term. Wouldn’t it make more sense that if you use the status quo definition of capitalism that you also use the status quo definition of socialism?
You know, as well as I, that Rothbard’s interpretation of the term capitalism is not the status quo interpretation nor is his definition of socialism that which you have described. If it was, would he not have named it such?
Ok, I’ll admit I don’t understand your theory, perhaps I never will have time to really get the nuts and bolts.
Just tell me this: is your view of Rothbard the socialist just some strange theoretical similarity or does it have any practical consequence?
Do you believe that the day we live in a society where Rothbard’s theories are accepted by the majority of people there is going to be some great redistribution of wealth to the masses? If yes, I can show some information that this is not correct.
If no, then I’m not really interested in whether you can twist definitions to make AC to mean socialism.(Marx, Rothbard..both Jewish, hey what’s the difference?)
PirateRothbard
The issue of accumulation is precisely what I was trying to address in my essay, “Let the Free Market Eat the Rich”. It’s speculative, of course, and I could stand to find some data to back up my points, but it’s based on what should be an obvious concept: accumulation is subsidized. My blog’s down right now, but you should be able to google it.