Rothbard’s Reds Redux
When is a Free Market not Capitalism? Sheldon Richman perceptively responds to attacks on Kevin Carson’s case that a Free Market might best be referred to as Socialism when, as both self-described “socialist” thinkers such as Tucker and “capitalist” thinkers such as Rothbard urge, the Market is set so free, in terms of removal of State granted privilege, that the working class can “abolish itself” as a class, as Marx urged (although perhaps not quite in the way Marx had in mind, since he didn’t have a fully developed Agorist Class Theory to work with).
Of course, I’ve talked about this sort of thing and its ramifications before, and I’m not the first Rothbardian to do so. As an example, note where Konkin briefly argued over two decades ago that the stateless Free Market accomplishes the libertarian communist goal of abolishing “wage slavery” (not necessarily wages per se) using the “anarcho-capitalist” means.
“It probably should be noted explicitly that businesses could grow quite large in the counter-economy. Whether or not ‘wage workers’ would exist instead of ‘independent contractors’ for all steps of production is arguable, but this author feels that the whole concept of ‘worker-boss’ is a holdover from feudalism and not, as Marx claims, fundamental to ‘capitalism.’ Of course, capital-statism is the opposite of what the libertarian advocates.”
As Carson noted in a comment on Richman’s post:
“My analysis of state monopoly capitalism in chapters six through eight, for the most part, can stand independently of the treatment of value theory in Part One. Most of it has to do with direct state subsidies and regulatory cartelization, and could be defended on a purely Rothbardian… basis.” [emphasis added]
“…it is clear that Block’s problem with my analysis of the history of state capitalism has little to do with the labor theory of value, and that most of the points where he differs with me are points where I agree with Rothbard.” [emphasis added]
While Rothbard was a giant in terms of pure market anarchist theory, he either failed to see past political reformism or his courage failed to be sufficient to cause him to forsake it for the full implications of his ideas. Konkin, however, did and the result was revolutionary market anarchism — agorism. Strictly speaking, agorism is just an overlay of a revolutionary strategy consistent with libertarian ethics on top of market anarchist theory. Not in all cases perhaps, but as a tendency, the embrace of the revolutionary attitude additionally allows one to purge one’s self of conservative attitudes that blind one’s self to the full implications of Rothbardian theory, which Richman might call “Free-Market Bolshevism”. and its potential to serve as a basis, once the terminological gap has been bridged, to reunite the modern American libertarian movement, which has historically been allied with conservatism, with libertarian socialism instead.
I’ve said it before and more than once — and others have both alluded to it and magnificently expounded upon the underlying ideas in scholarly terms… We’re the Libertarian Left, and we’re the new Reds.
Disclaimer: I should add that the term “Free Market Bolshevism” as used in this context is purely an example of my own sense of irony. Those Marxists that Market Anarchists would (apparently) have the most common ground with would be the pre-Bolshevik Classical Marxists, as Eugene Plawiuk explains.
Share This
Good post, Brad. But I don’t want my use of the term “free-market Bolshevism” to be misunderstood. I was not embracing the term or using it as a short-hand for an attitude of any kind. What I wrote is this: “In light of historical definitions and real-world systems, there is nothing incoherent about free-market socialism or free-market anti-capitalism (as long as one defines one’s terms). Indeed, in historical terms, free-market, or laissez-faire, capitalism makes as much sense as free-market Bolshevism.” In other words both terms, historically speaking, are contradictions in terms.
[...] From Brad Spangler’s excellent breakdown of the parallel interests of socialists and libertarians: We’re the Libertarian Left, and we’re the new Reds. [...]
Except, of course, that Marx was wrong. Socialism is centralized and totalitarian by nature, economics proves this. Hence calling a free market “socialist” is to give in to a wrong definition of socialism - what they wanted it to be, not what it is.
I would urge you to explore the links in this post and in my response to your earlier comment. I’m not trying to rehabilitate Marx. I’m attempting to position pure market anarchism as the new radical creed for the left to orient itself on. We can best do that by explaining, in terminology the existing radical left uses, why libertarianism addresses their concerns.
And I should add that the primary obstacle to that, aside from rhetorical differences with the left, is the common failure of libertarians to fully grasp libertarianism.
>common failure of libertarians to fully grasp libertarianism.
That’s because they don’t teach American history and civics to kids anymore. Blame that on the socialists.
If by “they” you mean the State and its public school system — it’s fulfilling its statist mission of homogenizing and dumbing down the vast majority of people rather well. A carefull study of history will reveal that has been its exact purpose since its inception and one I am resolutely opposed to.
No. Most of the founding father wanted small government - they would not have written the constitution as they did if they wanted big government. They easily could have had the revolution and put in place a different monrachy, people wanted George Washington to be crowned king. The founding fathers were enlightened, they wanted a small government there just to protect the right of the people.
Ever since, have people fought against that and tried to expand the government? Sure, some have. Until FDR though, and the socialist influence at about that time, it wasn’t a very big movement. Some companies had influenced law, adding anti-trust laws to keep away competition, other business fought adamantly against them; some congressmen advocated programs but most refused to add them. It wasn’t until 1895 that the income tax was introduced, and that was about the same time that Socialism was becoming a popular topic in NYC. Then FDR really overhauled the whole concept of limited government and basically tried to ntroduce fascism. People fought against it, some things were deemed unconstitutional, but the depression and then the war and the popular notions about socialism being the grand cure, planning being the answer and so forth at that time convinced everyone to look the other way and allow a huge expansion of the role of government in America.
Ever since we have been fighting on two sides - though the small-government side was pretty quiet for a few years there. But even as JFK expanded government, he learned a little economics and reduced the top tax rate. The Jimmy Carter was also really bad, but the public knew better and Reagan turned a lot of it back around. Since then, its been even better, with the repubs in congress in 1994 reforming welfare and recently some de-regulation (eg telecom) and privatization. It doesn’t seem like much but we do not have a top tax rate of 90% or 70% or even 50% - its only 35%. Way too high, but we have made some progress.
No, we’ve not made progress. Government has continued to expand, particularly in the last few years under absolute Republican control at the federal level. Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.
You would say we are worse off than in 1960 when the top tax bracket was 85.5%? You were only entitled to 15% of your earned income, today you keep 70%, but we are worse off, more statist now? What about when we rolled back some of FDR’s programs - was that illusory too? Things are always getting worse until the revolution, eh?
Things can be different without being better. If the tax rate is your only measure of how free you are, then it sounds like you need to expand your horizons, to say the least. I am implacably opposed to taxation, far more so than you are. The government has, since 1960 and long before, been getting bigger and more powerful. Its antithesis, Liberty, has naturally suffered as a result.
Obviously its not the only measure - but it does tell you a lot that we went form taking nearly all the income of hard working people, to taking only 1/3. That is a big step. What was expanded to such a degree as to equal that reduction?
How is the government more powerful now than when, under FDR, millions of Americans were working for Uncle Sam directly and a federal NRA program limited working hours and set wages for other business?
Between the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), millions of Americans were reforesting for their country.
Give me some examples of how the US today is more statist than it was then.
If you want some statistics, you can see that we have reduced government spending from its height in the late 1970ss back to where it was in 1960. If we axed the social programs, we could get back to pre-FDR. Many people advocate this. Simply because you don’t believe it and are impatient doesn’t make you right, nor does it mean that revolution is the answer.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/govtsize/govtsize.htm
Yes, those were produced by the government - but this is because in this country we are capable of recognizing the need to reduce government and unlike the Soviet Union don’ have all of our incentives ass-backward. If you actually care to consider the other side, do read those links. I did read what you gave me.
I promise I will read them. That, however, can not sway my conviction that any coercive government is fundamentally immoral and that governments inevitably overcome any constitutional constraints on their power. I’d like to respond in more detail to your other two comments, but I do have some other things I need to do right now. I do urge you to stick around, though, as I consider the debate exhilirating.
I have to go too. I will stop by again, though. Our debate at this point is more about method than even your extreme view that all government must be abolished. As I said, I think that limited to just protection of life, liberty and property, government is fine. But, even if we were to abolish it at the end, the righ way to do it is to use the limitations already enumerated in the constitution, and amend (or roll back amendments) where necessary. Once government is that small, it would be easy and naturall to abolish if necessary.
The links I gave you show that is has grown, but they also show that it has been reduced in size since 1960 by a significant amount and they also show why it has grown and shrunk and that people care about this issue.
For more people who care about the size of government - see conservatives.
You may disagree with them on many other issues, but there are some that are ready to follow the path I laid out in terms of reducing government down to its barest bones. That link is mostly about taxes, but you can see a few that are ready to go much farther:
10. Rep. John Linder (R.-Ga.)
Member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Lead sponsor of the “Fair Tax,” which would abolish the income tax, eliminate the IRS and create a consumption tax.
6. Sen. John Sununu (R.-N.H.)
A consistent proponent of tax cuts and opponent of spending increases. Ran for office on the issue of Social Security reform and championed legislation for reform through personal retirement accounts.
3. Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.)
Sponsor of a bill to require the Congressional Budget Office to use dynamic scoring for proposed tax cuts and co-sponsor with Rep. Ron Paul of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment. Consistent proponent of tax cuts and opponent of spending increases.
2. Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.)
Sponsor of legislation (the 8.5% Tax Reform Plan) to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax and business tax.
1. Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.)
Co-sponsor with Rep. Jeff Flake of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and end income, gift and estate taxes. Regularly pushes for tax cuts. Sponsor of bills to allow tax credits for private school tuition, to permit tax deduction of college tuition and to stop all taxation of Social Security benefits. Opposes all unconstitutional spending programs.
It is possible to do it my way - your way is simply too dangerous and won’t work, anyway.
[...] The fact also remains that a lot of well-intentioned libertarians who aspire toward principled behavior, including some who see themselves as more Left than Right, remain attached to counter-productive electoral reformist strategies. As I’ve said before, if we (agorists and radical left-libertarians generally) are the new Reds, there will be shades of pink. Such is the nature of the battle of ideas. There will be a spectrum of incomplete acceptance. [...]
[...] And, finally, I should mention why I consider myself, today, an unabashed leftist. You see, it occurred to me while reading an excellent post by Brad Spangler (see also a more recent one illustrating a similar point) that, depending on how one defines ones terms, I could be considered the following: [...]
[...] I’ve argued before, and still maintain, that certain strands of Rothbardian market anarchist thought from Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left phase in the 1960’s are better described as “libertarian socialism” in the same sense that Tucker was, and modern Tuckerite mutualists are, also “socialists” but not state socialists. This, despite Rothbard’s cultural Right tendencies and erroneous naming of his position as “anarcho-capitalism”. [...]