|
|
Index | What's New | Links | Introduction | Bibliography
 PDF
version of Appendix 1.
Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying to claim
that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the so-called
"anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often the case with
Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.
In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?)
of his FAQ, Caplan writes that:
"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
to maintain this claim."
He quotes Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A History of
Ideas and Movements as evidence:
"To be sure, there is a difference between
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists
also do not acknowledge any right to society to
force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
property which is maintained through the power of the
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
individual independence, without fully answering the
question of how property could be maintained without
courts and police."
Caplan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that
before the emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism Landauer found
it necessary to distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of
which he considered to be within the broad socialist tradition."
However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist
and social anarchists agree that there is a difference between
the two schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course, Caplan
tries to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist
anarchists is somehow "evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic.
Firstly, Landauer's book is about European Socialism. Individualist
anarchism was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly
falls within the book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin
is mentioned on two pages (one of which a footnote). Does
that mean Kropotkin was not a socialist? Of course not. It seems
likely, therefore, that Landauer is using the common Marxist terminology
of defining Marxism as Socialism, while calling other parts of the
wider socialist movement by their self-proclaimed names of anarchism,
syndicalism and so on. Hardly surprising that Kropotkin is hardly
mentioned in a history of "Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).
As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference
between their ideas. Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished
between two types of anarchism as well as two types of socialism.
Thus Caplan's "interesting point" is just a banality, a common
fact which anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history
would know. Kropotkin in his justly famous essay on Anarchism for
The Encyclopaedia Britannica also found it necessary
to distinguish two strands of anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims
that only one of these strands of anarchism is "within the broad
socialist tradition" all we can say is that both Kropotkin and
Tucker considered their ideas and movement to be part of the broader
socialist tradition. According to an expert on Individualist Anarchism,
Tucker "looked upon anarchism as a branch of the general socialist
movement" [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, pp.
226-7]. Other writers on Individualist Anarchism have noted the
same fact (for example, Tucker "definitely thought of himself
a socialist" [William O. Reichart, Partisans of Freedom:
A Study in American Anarchism, p. 156]). As evidence of the
anti-socialist nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's interpretation
of Landauer's words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the
writings of people like Tucker you will see that they called themselves
socialists and considered themselves part of the wider socialist
movement. No one familiar with Tucker's works could overlook this
fact.
Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states
that he was "the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists."
[p. 67] Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon
into the "anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing
of Landauer seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's
ideas in some depth in his work within a chapter headed "The
three Anticapitalistic Movements." Indeed, he starts his
discussion of Proudhon's ideas with the words "In France, post-Utopian
socialism begins with Peter Joseph Proudhon." [p. 59] Given
that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that Individualist Anarchism
followed Proudhon's economic and political ideas the fact that Landauer
states that Proudhon was a socialist implies that Individualist
Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist" to use Caplan's term).
Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves
as followers of Proudhon's ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin).
For example, Tucker stated that his journal Liberty was "brought
into existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon"
and "lives principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich
in his "Introduction" to Proudhon and his "Bank of
the People" by Charles A. Dana]
Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist
Anarchism follows Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.
Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist.
To state the obvious, Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's
opposition to private property (in the capitalist sense of
the word), although Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly
the casual reader) by talking about possession as "property."
So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.
Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In section
7 (Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?) he states:
"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy
of government ownership of the means of production' -- it seems
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of
the strong restriction or abolition of private property,' then
the question becomes more complex."
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you
are ignorant of socialist ideas! By definition one, Bakunin and
Kropotkin are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all
anarchists were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued
for its abolition and its replacement with possession. The actual
forms of possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought,
but the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still
there. To quote Dana, in a pamphlet called "a really intelligent,
forceful, and sympathetic account of mutual banking" by Tucker,
individualist anarchists desire to "destroy the tyranny of capital,-
that is, of property" by mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon
and his "Bank of the People", p. 46]
Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light
a contradiction in Caplan's account. Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes
that Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form
of private property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict
private property to that of possession, as Caplan himself seems
aware. In other words, even taking his own definitions we find that
Proudhon would be considered a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon,
"all accumulated capital is collective property, no one may be
its exclusive owner." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings' summary of the anarchist
position on private property:
"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker],
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of
anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege."
He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed
with the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as
it embraced no more than the total product of individual labour."
["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger
Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 132]
The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even
opposition to, or "abolition" of, all forms of property is not one
which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand
the identification of socialism as state ownership, as would Individualist
Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for opposition or
abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism,
such a position would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin
(and, obviously, such self-proclaimed socialists as Tucker and Labadie).
For example, in Act for Yourselves Kropotkin explicitly
states that a peasant "who is in possession of just the amount
of land he can cultivate" would not be expropriated in an anarchist
revolution. Similarly for the family "inhabiting a house which
affords them just enough space . . . considered necessary for that
number of people" and the artisan "working with their own
tools or handloom" would be left alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes
the same point in The Conquest of Bread [p. 61] Thus, like
Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces private property with possession
as the former is "theft" (i.e. it allows exploitation, which
"indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation" namely "to everything
that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product
of other's toil" [The Conquest of Bread, p. 61])
Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the
abolition of all forms of "private property." Like anarchists, they
distinguished between that property which allows exploitation to
occur and that which did not. Looking at the Communist Manifesto
we find them arguing that the "distinguishing feature of Communism
is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of
bourgeois property" and that "Communism deprives no man of
the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does
is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others
by means of such appropriation." Moreover, they correctly note
that "property" has meant different things at different times and
that the "abolition of existing property relations is not at
all a distinctive feature of Communism" as "[a]ll property
relations in the past have continually been subject to historical
change consequent upon the change in historical conditions."
As an example, they argue that the French Revolution "abolished
feudal property in favour of bourgeois property." [The Manifesto
of the Communist Party]
Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private
property" is only true for those kinds of property that are
used to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the
anarchist position when he wrote that anarchists "are in favour
of the private property which cannot be used by one person to exploit
another." Reinventing Anarchy, p. 49] In other words,
property which is no longer truly private as it is used by
those who do not own it. In effect, the key point of Proudhon's
What is Property?, namely the difference between possession
and property. Which means that rather than desire the abolition
of all forms of "private property," socialists (of all kinds, libertarian
and authoritarian) desire the abolition of a specific kind of property,
namely that kind which allows the exploitation and domination of
others. To ignore this distinction is to paint a very misleading
picture of what socialism stands for.
This leaves the "the strong restriction . . . of private property"
definition of socialism. Here Caplan is on stronger ground. Unfortunately,
by using that definition the Individualist Anarchists, like the
Social Anarchists, are included in socialist camp, a conclusion
he is trying to avoid. As every anarchist shares Proudhon's
analysis that "property is theft" and that possession
would be the basis of anarchism, it means that every anarchist is
a socialist (as Labadie always claimed). This includes Tucker and
the other Individualist Anarchists. For example, Joseph Labadie
stated that "the two great sub-divisions of Socialists" (anarchists
and State Socialists) both "agree that the resources of nature
-- land, mines, and so forth -- should not be held as private property
and subject to being held by the individual for speculative purposes,
that use of these things shall be the only valid title, and that
each person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They
all agree that the present social system is one composed of a class
of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is impossible
under such conditions." [What is Socialism?] Tucker himself
argued that the anarchists' "occupancy and use" title to
land and other scare material would involve a change (and, in effect,
"restriction") of current (i.e. capitalist) property rights:
"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property
concerns only products. But anything is a product upon which human
labour has been expended. It should be stated, however, that in the
case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so
limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual
occupancy and use." [Instead of a Book, p. 61]
and so:
"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be
put in force until as a theory it has been accepted as generally
. . . seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of ordinary
private property." [Occupancy and Use versus the Single
Tax]
So, as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important
aspects of capitalist property rights. Given that the Individualist
Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still the
largest source of employment this position on land is much more
significant than it first appears. In effect, Tucker and the other
American Anarchists were advocating a massive and fundamental
change in property-rights, in the social relationships they generated
and in American society. This is, in other words, a very "strong
restriction" in capitalist property rights (and it is this
type of property Caplan is referring to, rather than "property"
in the abstract).
However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting" private
property is flawed as it does not really reflect anarchist ideas
on the subject. Anarchists, in effect, reject the simplistic analysis
that because a society (or thinker) accepts "property" that it (or
he/she) is capitalistic. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the term
"property" has been used to describe a wide range of situations
and institutions. Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe
a society in which capitalist property rights were not enforced.
Secondly, and far more importantly, concentrating on "property"
rights in the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates.
Freedom is product of social interaction, not one of isolation.
This means that the social relationships generated in a given society
are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has "property" or
not. To look at "property" in the abstract is to ignore people and
the relationships they create between each other. And it is these
relationships which determine whether they are free or not (and
so exploited or not). Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition"
of socialism avoids the central issue of freedom, of whether a given
society generates oppression and exploitation or not. By looking
at "property" Caplan ignores liberty, a strange but unsurprising
position for a self-proclaimed "libertarian" to take.
Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking.
A "traditional" one of government ownership is hardly that
and the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while,
in its own way, includes all the anarchists in the socialist
camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did not intend).
So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our discussion
on property we can instantly reject Caplan's biased and simplistic
starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism which most socialists
would agree with would be one that stated that "the whole produce
of labour ought to belong to the labourer" (to use words Thomas
Hodgskin, an early English socialist, from his essay Labour Defended
against the Claims of Capital). Tucker stated that "the bottom
claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession
of its own," that "the natural wage of labour is its product"
(see his essay State Socialism and Anarchism). This definition
also found favour with Kropotkin who stated that socialism "in
its wide, generic, and true sense" was an "effort to abolish
the exploitation of labour by capital." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets, p. 169]
From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again quote
Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not to by robbed of the fruits
of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 145] Because of this socialism also could
be defined as "the workers shall own the means of production,"
as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer,
and, in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most
socialists would agree with. The form of this ownership, however,
differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin
communal ownership, others like the Social Democrats state ownership
and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed in the 19th century,
so did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of
this process:
"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave
rise to a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the
artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives composed of
men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations
. . . For the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came
to mean the formation of a mass organisation that gave factory
workers the collective power to expropriate a plant that no
single worker could properly own. . . They advocated public
ownership of the means of production, whether by the state or
by the working class organised in trade unions." [The Third
Revolution, vol. 2, p. 262]
So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various brands
of anarchism. Individualist anarchism is clearly a form of artisanal
socialism (which reflects its American roots) while communist anarchism
and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial (or proletarian)
socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe). Proudhon's mutualism
bridges these extremes, advocating as it does artisan socialism
for small-scale industry and agriculture and co-operative associations
for large-scale industry (which reflects the state of the French
economy in the 1840s to 1860s). The common feature of all these
forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and the notion that "workers
shall own the means of production." Or, in Proudhon's words,
"abolition of the proletariat." [Op. Cit., p. 179]
As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support for "association"
(or "associative socialism") "anticipated all those later
movements" which demanded "that the economy be controlled
neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . . but by the
producers" such as "the revolutionary syndicalists" and
"the students of 1968." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 165]
"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism,"
to again quote Proudhon. [Op. Cit., p. 167]
Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism
was based upon exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not
have access to the means of production and so had to sell themselves
to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing
that the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer
and opposing the exploitation of labour by capital. To use Tucker's
own words:
"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon
the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of
the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something
that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much
opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege . . . every
man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What
Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to
deprive capital of its reward." [Instead of a Book, p. 404]
By ending wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The
land to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer.
The product to the producer" and so "everyone [would] be
a proprietor" and so there would be "no more proletaires"
(in the words of Ernest Lesigne, quoted favourably by Tucker as
part of what he called a "summary exposition of Socialism from
the standpoint of Anarchism" [Op. Cit., p. 17, p. 16]).
Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be no more and "the product
[would go] to the producer." The Individualist Anarchists, as
Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, "expected a society of largely
self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between
any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104]
In other words, the "abolition of the proletariat" as desired
by Proudhon.
Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure
the "product to the producer" and this meant workers owning
and controlling the means of production they used ("no more proletaires").
He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual
banks and other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists
followed Proudhon, who "would individualise and associate"
the productive and distributive forces in society [as quoted by
James J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 228]). Here is
Kropotkin on Proudhon's reformist mutualist-socialism:
"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property
is theft', he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense
of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand,
understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the
best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same
time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners
of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred
to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of
earning interest." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlet's,
pp. 290-1 -- emphasis added]
In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a
society without capitalists and wage slaves ("the same end")
but achieved by different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx
in 1846 he made the same point:
"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against
Property in such a way as to create what you German socialists call
community and which for the moment I will only go so far as calling
liberty or equality." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 151]
In other words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists
(namely to abolish capitalism, wage labour and exploitation) but
disagreed with the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed himself
squarely in this tradition and so could (and did) call himself a
socialist. Little wonder Joseph Labadie often said that "All
anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."
That Caplan tries to ignore this aspect of Individualist Anarchism
in an attempt to co-opt it into "anarcho"-capitalism indicates well
that his FAQ is not an objective or neutral work.
Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more
fertile ground for individualist anarchism: during the 19th-century,
such figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker
gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom
of contract and private property."
However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did not support
private property in the capitalist sense of the word and Kropotkin
and Bakunin, no less than Tucker and Spooner, supported free agreement
between individuals and groups. What does that prove? That Caplan
seems more interested in the words Tucker and Proudhon used rather
than the meanings they attached to them. Hardly convincing.
Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject
of socialism:
"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number
of different schools." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 177]
If he did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists
were a school of socialism, given their opposition to exploitation
and the desire to see its end via their political, economic and
social ideas.
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best
to claim that Proudhon was not really a socialist at all. He states
that "Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as a "left
anarchist"] although his ideas on the desirability of a modified
form of private property would lead some to exclude him from the
leftist camp altogether."
"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin?
Obviously not -- Bakunin claimed that "Proudhon was the master
of us all." According to George Woodcock Kropotkin was one of
Proudhon's "confessed disciples." Perhaps that makes Bakunin
and Kropotkin proto-capitalists? Obviously not. What about Tucker?
He called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism."
[Instead of a Book, p. 381] And, as we noted above, the socialist
historian Carl Launder considered Proudhon a socialist, as did the
noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his History of Socialist
Thought (and in fact called him one of the "major prophets
of Socialism."). What about Marx and Engels, surely they would
be able to say if he was a socialist or not? According to Engels,
Proudhon was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
[Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 260]
In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems
to place Proudhon outside of the "leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp
is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of The Third Revolution
Bookchin argues that "Proudhon was no socialist" simply because
he favoured "private property." [p. 39] However, he does
note the "one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist
contract from the capitalist contract" namely "it abjured
profit and exploitation." [Op. Cit., pp. 40-41] -- which,
of course, places him in the socialist tradition (see last
section). Unfortunately, Bookchin fails to acknowledge this
or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along with usury,
which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see, for
example, the General Idea of the Revolution, p. 98, pp. 215-6
and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of capital as
being "more wage slavery" and, instead, urging whatever capital
required collective labour to be "democratically organised workers'
associations" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62]).
Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that "association"
was "a protest against the wage system" which suggests that
Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian "analysis minimised the social
relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry" [p.
180] is false. Given that wage labour is the unique social
relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works
that he did not "minimise" the social relations created by capitalism,
rather the opposite. Proudhon's opposition to wage labour clearly
shows that he focused on the key social relation which capitalism
creates -- namely the one of domination of the worker by the capitalist.
Bookchin does mention that Proudhon was "obliged in
1851, in the wake of the associationist ferment of 1848 and after,
to acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
large-scale enterprises." [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support
of industrial democracy pre-dates 1851 by some 11 years. He stated
in What is Property? that he "preach[ed] emancipation
to the proletaires; association to the labourers" and that "leaders"
within industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [p. 137 and p. 414] It is significant that the
first work to call itself anarchist opposed property along with
the state, exploitation along with oppression and supported self-management
against hierarchical relationships within production ("anarcho"-capitalists
take note!). Proudhon also called for "democratically organised
workers' associations" to run large-scale industry in his 1848
Election Manifesto. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62]
Given that Bookchin considers as "authentic artisanal socialists"
those who called for collective ownership of the means of
production, but "exempted from collectivisation the peasantry"
[p. 4] we have to conclude that Proudhon was such an "authentic"
artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one point Bookchin mentions the
"individualistic artisanal socialism of Proudhon" [p. 258]
which suggests a somewhat confused approach to Proudhon's ideas!
In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike
Caplan, he should know better. Rather than not being a socialist,
Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin himself calls
"artisanal socialism" (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed,
he notes that Proudhon was its "most famous advocate" and
that "nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even [Robert]
Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as Proudhon -- essentially
sought the equitable distribution of property." [p. 273] Given
Proudhon's opposition to wage labour and capitalist property and
his support for industrial democracy as an alternative, Bookchin's
position is untenable -- he confuses socialism with communism, rejecting
as socialist all views which are not communism (a position he shares
with right-libertarians).
He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in The
Spanish Anarchists that:
"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen,
peasants, and collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate
and contract with each other to satisfy their material needs.
Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views
involve a break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded
as communist ideas. . ." [p. 18]
In contrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven
Vincent is correct to argue that, for Proudhon, justice "applied
to the economy was associative socialism" and so Proudhon is
squarely in the socialist camp [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the
Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 228].
However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin,
who is wrong, at least some of the time). Perhaps they just
did not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated
"I am socialist" [Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 195] and described himself as a socialist many times this also
applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The
answer is no. To quote George Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas
on this subject we find:
"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to
exploit the labour of others, without an effort on his own part,
property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions
of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the
land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed
he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." ["On Proudhon's
'What is Property?'", The Raven No. 31, pp. 208-9]
George Crowder makes the same point:
"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned
. . . including such things as interest on loans and income from
rent. This is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods
either produced by the work of the owner or necessary for that
work, for example his dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon
initially refers to legitimate rights of ownership of these goods
as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls this
'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same."
[Classical Anarchism, pp. 85-86]
Indeed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of
capital and instrument is what the capitalist owes to the producer,
but he never pays him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation
which causes the poverty of the worker, the opulence of the idle
and the inequality of their conditions. And it is this, above all,
which has so aptly been called the exploitation of man by man."
[Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 43]
He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society,
the synthesis of communism and property" and calls it "liberty."
[The Anarchist Reader, p. 68]. He even goes so far as to
say that property "by its despotism and encroachment, soon proves
itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op. Cit., p. 67]
Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner."
Indeed, he considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to
rescue the working masses from capitalist exploitation." [Selected
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 44, p. 80]
In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be
the source of exploitation and oppression and he opposed it. He
explicitly contrasts his ideas to that of capitalist property and
rejects it as a means of ensuring liberty.
Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies
include his defence of the right of inheritance and his emphasis
on the genuine antagonism between state power and property rights."
However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well
aware that possession is a source of independence within capitalism
and so should be supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:
"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the
fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only
the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy
(that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed
artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight a
contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[Anarchism: Arguments
For and Against, pp. 12-13]
Malatesta makes the same point:
"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
private property by stating that property is the condition and
guarantee of liberty.
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?
"But then why do we oppose them?
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend
is capitalist property. . . which therefore depends on the existence
of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell
their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real
value. . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of
slavery." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113]
As does Kropotkin:
"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your
labour is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really
produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain
choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him,
and lastly, when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to
others who work like him, but bringing in little to idlers."
[The Conquest of Bread, p. 145]
Perhaps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really"
proto-"anarcho"-capitalists as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering
if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries to rewrite
history to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas
of what anarchism, socialism and whatever are actually like.
In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's "emphasis on
the genuine antagonism between state power and property rights"
came from his later writings, in which he argued that property rights
were required to control state power. In other words, this "heterodoxy"
came from a period in which Proudhon did not think that state could
be abolished and so "property is the only power that can act
as a counterweight to the State." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 140] Of course, this "later" Proudhon also acknowledged
that property was "an absolutism within an absolutism," "by
nature autocratic" and that its "politics could be summed
up in a single word," namely "exploitation." [p. 141,
p. 140, p. 134]
Moreover, Proudhon argues that "spread[ing] it more equally
and establish[ing] it more firmly in society" is the means by
which "property" "becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps
the State on an even keel." [p. 133, p. 140] In other words,
rather than "property" as such limiting the state, it is
"property" divided equally through society which is the key, without
concentrations of economic power and inequality which would result
in exploitation and oppression. Therefore, "[s]imple justice.
. . requires that equal division of land shall not only operate
at the outset. If there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained
from generation to generation." [Op. Cit., p. 141, p.
133, p. 130].
Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" Caplan
does not mention is his belief that "property" was required not
only to defend people against the state, but also capitalism. He
saw society dividing into "two classes, one of employed workers,
the other of property-owners, capitalists, entrepreneurs." He
thus recognised that capitalism was just as oppressive as the state
and that it assured "the victory of the strong over the weak,
of those who property over those who own nothing." [as quoted
by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 121] Thus Proudhon's argument that "property is liberty"
is directed not only against the state, but also against social
inequality and concentrations of economic power and wealth.
Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were
the "exploiters of the bodies and souls of their wage earners"
and an outrage on "human dignity and personality." Instead
of wage labour he thought that the "industry to be operated,
the work to be done, are the common and indivisible property of
all the participant workers." In other words, self-management
and workers' control. In this way there would be "no more government
of man by man, by means of accumulation of capital" and the
"social republic" established. Hence his support for co-operatives:
"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests,
but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments,
which the first [French] revolution left undisturbed. Afterwards, when
they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of workers should
take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
inheritance." [cited in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1,
and Anarchism, George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
In other words, a socialist society as workers would no
longer be separated from the means of production and they would
control their own work (the "abolition of the proletariat,"
to use Proudhon's expression). This would mean recognising that
"the right to products is exclusive - jus in re; the right to
means is common - jus ad rem" [cited by Woodcock, Anarchism,
p. 96] which would lead to self-management:
"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of
industrial democracy." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 63]
As Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal
society of the ideal society it is this predominance of the small
proprietor, the peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one"
with "the creation of co-operative associations for the running
of factories and railways." ["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'",
Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]
All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon
as "really" a capitalist all along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's
support for protectionism [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 187], the "fixing after amicable discussion
of a maximum and minimum profit margin," "the
organising of regulating societies" and that mutualism would
"regulate the market" [Op. Cit., p. 70] and his obvious
awareness of economic power and that capitalism exploited and oppressed
the wage-worker suggests that rather than leading some to exclude
Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether, it is a case of excluding
him utterly from the "rightist camp" (i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism).
Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim (co-opt would be better) Proudhon
for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates how far Caplan will twist (or
ignore) the evidence. As would quickly become obvious when reading
his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's words) "normally classify
government, property, hierarchical organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"
To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to
rewrite anarchist and socialist history fails. Proudhon was the
fountainhead for both wings of the anarchist movement and What
is Property? "embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism.
. . [bar support for revolution] all the rest of later anarchism
is there, spoken or implied: the conception of a free society united
by association, of workers controlling the means of production.
. . [this book] remains the foundation on which the whole edifice
of nineteenth century anarchist theory was to be constructed."
[Op. Cit., p. 210]
Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely
developed and pushed to these, its final consequences." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198]
That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from Instead of
A Book or any of the books written about Tucker and his ideas.
That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has not
looked at either Instead of a Book or the secondary literature
(with obvious implications for the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided
to ignore these facts in favour of his own ideologically tainted
version of history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy
and objectivity of his FAQ).
Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from
1887 as follows in section 14 (What are the major debates between
anarchists? What are the recurring arguments?):
"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save
his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
all the possession by the labourer of his products."
You will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property
"the possession of the labourer of his products." However,
Proudhon did include in his definition of "property" the possession
of the capital to steal profits from the work of the labourers.
As is clear from the quote, Tucker and Proudhon was opposed to capitalist
property ("the power of usury"). From Caplan's own evidence
he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!
But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":
"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses,
and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer."
[cited in Men against the State by James J. Martin, p. 208]
Which can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who
supports capitalism!
And we should note that Tucker considered both government and
capital oppressive. He argued that anarchism meant "the restriction
of power to self and the abolition of power over others. Government
makes itself felt alike in country and in city, capital has its
usurious grip on the farm as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions
and exactions of neither government nor capital can be avoided by
migration." [Instead of a Book, p. 114]
And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism?
Perhaps Caplan should actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique
of private property before writing such nonsense? We have indicated
Proudhon's ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it
is interesting that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism"
for Caplan, indicating that he does not know what socialism or anarchism
actually is. To state the obvious, you can be a hater of "communism"
and still be a socialist!
So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even
Proudhon were really capitalists by quoting the actual people involved
is a failure.
He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not
anarchist is wrong because "the factual supporting arguments
are often incorrect. For example, despite a popular claim that socialism
and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception
of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only
Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon,
were ardently in favour of private property (merely believing that
some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing
private property as such)."
The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists,
however, are not "incorrect." It is Caplan's assumption that socialism
is against all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the
obvious, socialism does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists
support the rights of workers to own their own means of production
if they do not wish to join communist communes -- see above). Thus
Proudhon was renown as the leading French Socialist theorist when
he was alive. His ideas were widely known in the socialist movement
and in many ways his economic theories were similar to the ideas
of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen and William Thompson.
As Kropotkin notes:
"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England,
in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist,
and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The
Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy,
1839)." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 291]
Perhaps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson
as capitalists?
Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions
and stated that there were "two schools of Socialistic thought
. . . State Socialism and Anarchism." And stated in very clear
terms that:
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:
the prevalence on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [Instead of
a Book, p. 363]
And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and
wage slavery) and wished that "there should be no more proletaires."
[see the essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in Instead
of a Book, p. 17]
Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject
of capitalism and private property. In section 13 (What moral justifications
have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:
"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labour income
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
economic effect thereof would not actually occur."
Firstly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered
profits to be exploitative as well as interest and rent.
Hence we find Tucker arguing that a "just distribution of the
products of labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of
income except labour. These sources may be summed up in one word,
-- usury; and the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent
and profit." [Instead of a Book, p. 474] To ignore the
fact that Tucker also considered profit as exploitative seems strange,
to say the least, when presenting an account of his ideas.
Secondly, rather than it being "unclear" whether the end
of usury was "merely a desirable side effect" of anarchism,
the opposite is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would
quickly see that their politics were formulated with the express
aim of ending usury. Just one example from hundreds:
"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will
abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will
abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means
whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product."
[Instead of a Book, p. 347]
While it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would
result from the application of Tucker's ideas, it is distinctly
incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way
as a "desirable side effect" of them. Rather, in their
eyes, the end of usury was one of the aims of Individualist
Anarchism, as can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out
in his excellent account of Individualist Anarchism:
"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of
equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least,
aware that existing conditions were far from ideal, that
the system itself worked against the majority of individuals
in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital,
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually
doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation. This the
anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system." [The
Individualist Anarchists, p. 102]
This is part of the reason why they considered themselves socialists
and, equally as important, they were considered socialists by other
socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker. The Individualist Anarchists,
as can be seen, fit very easily into Kropotkin's comments that "the
anarchists, in common with all socialists. . . maintain that the
now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist
production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs
against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility."
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 285] Given that
they considered profits as usury and proposed "occupancy and
use" in place of the prevailing land ownership rights they are
obviously socialists.
That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his politics
explains Tucker's 1911 postscript to his famous essay "State
Socialism and Anarchism" in which he argues that "concentrated
capital" itself was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued
that the "trust is now a monster which. . . even the freest competition,
could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy." While,
in an earlier period, big business "needed the money monopoly
for its sustenance and its growth" its size now ensured that
it "sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but
no longer a necessity. It can do without it." This meant that
the way was now "not so clear." Indeed, he argued that the
problem of the trusts "must be grappled with for a time solely
by forces political or revolutionary" as the trust had moved
beyond the reach of "economic forces" simply due to the concentration
of resources in its hands. ["Postscript" to State Socialism
and Anarchism]
If the end of "usury" was considered a "side-effect"
rather than an objective, then the problems of the trusts and economic
inequality/power ("enormous concentration of wealth") would
not have been an issue. That the fact of economic power was
obviously considered a hindrance to anarchy suggests the end of
usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in the abstract
could not achieve. Rather than take the "anarcho"-capitalist position
that massive inequality did not affect "free competition" or individual
liberty, Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore, "free competition"
(and so the abolition of the public state) in conditions of massive
inequality would not create an anarchist society.
By trying to relegate an aim to a "side-effect," Caplan
distorts the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his comments on trusts, "concentrated
capital" and the "enormous concentration of wealth" indicates
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism (which
dismisses the question of economic power Tucker raises out of hand).
It also indicates the unity of political and economic ideas, with
Tucker being aware that without a suitable economic basis individual
freedom was meaningless. That an economy (like capitalism) with
massive inequalities in wealth and so power was not such a basis
is obvious from Tucker's comments.
Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly?
Private property, particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based upon actual
occupancy and use" and that anarchism "means the abolition
of landlordism and the annihilation of rent." [Instead of
a Book, p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a restriction
on "private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use
Caplan's definition of socialism, means that Tucker was obviously
part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In other words,
Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while socialism
(libertarian of course) would be the product of anarchy.
So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism
is simply anti-government fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms,
have distinct economic as well as political ideas and these cannot
be parted without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular,
Caplan's attempt to portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner
also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure" anti-government
anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows
that his self-proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and,
unsurprisingly, Tucker called himself a socialist and considered
anarchism as part of the wider socialist movement.
"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'" [William O.
Reichart, Partisans of Freedom: A Study in American Anarchism,
p. 157]
Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and Proudhon's
"capitalism" by stating that:
"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of 'anarchist.' In his
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
Liberty.' Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin
to prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is
because while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist
movement, Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a
communist! In State Socialism and Anarchism he stated that
anarchism was "an ideal utterly inconsistent with that of those
Communists who falsely call themselves Anarchists while at the same
time advocating a regime of Archism fully as despotic as that of
the State Socialists themselves." ["State Socialism and Anarchism",
Instead of a Book, pp. 15-16]
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying
Proudhon or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title
to supporters of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a
political movement (as opposed to a dictionary definition)
has always been anti-capitalist and against capitalist wage slavery,
exploitation and oppression. In other words, anarchism (in all its
forms) has always been associated with specific political and
economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin defined their anarchism
as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To quote Tucker on
the subject:
"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition
of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation
of man by man." [cited in Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
American Individualism by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of
socialism." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p.
46] Malatesta argued that "when [people] sought to overthrow
both State and property -- then it was anarchy was born" and,
like Tucker, aimed for "the complete destruction of the domination
and exploitation of man by man." [Life and Ideas, p.
19, pp. 22-28] Indeed every leading anarchist theorist defined
anarchism as opposition to government and exploitation. Thus
Brain Morris' excellent summary:
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of
politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil,
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way
anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, for example], and
partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism
from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character
of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has
never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally
critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state."
["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed no. 45, p. 40]
Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but
always combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to
exploitation. Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism
have declared themselves "socialist" and so it is "conceptually
and historically misleading" to "create a dichotomy between
socialism and anarchism." [Brian Morris, Op. Cit., p.
39] Needless to say, anarchists oppose state socialism just
as much as they oppose capitalism. All of which means that anarchism
and capitalism are two different political ideas with specific
(and opposed) meanings -- to deny these meanings by uniting the
two terms creates an oxymoron, one that denies the history and the
development of ideas as well as the whole history of the anarchist
movement itself.
As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist
(but not a communist) it is hardly surprising that he mentions him.
Again, Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a "right-wing"
anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending
individualist anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters
of capitalism! That in itself should be enough to indicate Caplan's
attempt to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist
co-option of Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.
Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent
origins. In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?) he
states:
"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption,
but overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
common with anarcho-capitalists than with left-anarchists.)"
Firstly, as he states, Tucker and Spooner have been "adopted"
by the "anarcho"-capitalist school. Being dead they have little
chance to protest such an adoption, but it is clear that they considered
themselves as socialists, against capitalism (it may be claimed
that Spooner never called himself a socialist, but then again he
never called himself an anarchist either; it is his strong opposition
to wage labour that places him in the socialist camp). Secondly,
Caplan lets the cat out the bag by noting that this "adoption" involved
a few warnings - more specifically, the attempt to rubbish or ignore
the underlying socio-economic ideas of Tucker and Spooner and the
obvious anti-capitalist nature of their vision of a free society.
Individualist anarchists are, indeed, more similar to classical
liberals than social anarchists. Similarly, social anarchists are
more similar to Marxists than Individualist anarchists. But neither
statement means that Individualist anarchists are capitalists, or
social anarchists are state socialists. It just means some of their
ideas overlap -- and we must point out that Individualist anarchist
ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and social anarchist ones with
liberal ones (indeed, one interesting overlap between Marxism and
Individualist Anarchism can be seen from Marx's comment that abolishing
interest and inter-bearing capital "means the abolition of capital
and of capitalist production itself." [Theories of Surplus
Value, vol. 3, p. 472] Given that Individualist Anarchism aimed
to abolish interest (along with rent and profit) it would suggest,
from a Marxist position, that it is a socialist theory).
So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism
ideas are "partly those of Proudhon, but party those of Herbert
Spencer" [Kropotkins' Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 173],
what the "anarcho"-capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the
Proudhonian (i.e. socialist) aspect of their theories. However,
that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was not an anarchist, but a
right-wing Libertarian, a supporter of capitalism (a "champion
of the capitalistic class" as Tucker put it). In other words,
to ignore the socialist aspect of Individualist Anarchism (or anarchism
in general) is to reduce it to liberalism, an extreme version of
liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless -- and liberalism is not
anarchism. To reduce anarchism so is to destroy what makes anarchism
a unique political theory and movement:
"anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both
historically and ideologically . . . In a sense, anarchists
always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject
what is good in either they betray anarchism itself . . . We are
liberals but more so, and socialists but more so." [Nicholas Walter,
Reinventing Anarchy, p. 44]
In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas
which have little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in
his overview of anarchist theory and history, agrees:
"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."
[Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony
Wright (eds.), p. 142]
Barbara Goodwin also agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true
place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism
[Using Political Ideas, p. 148]. Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism
is an off-shoot of classical liberalism is a position Murray Rothbard
would agree with, as he states that right-wing Libertarians constitute
"the vanguard of classical liberalism." [quoted by Ulrike
Heider, Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, p. 95] Unfortunately
for this perspective anarchism is not liberalism and liberalism
is not anarchism. And equally as unfortunate (this time for the
anarchist movement!) "anarcho"-capitalism "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] However, being opposed to the state
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist
(as can be seen from the history of the anarchist movement). Brian
Morris puts it well when he writes:
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination.
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians
. . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who
fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists."
[Op. Cit., p. 38]
Rather than call themselves by a name which reflects their origins
in liberalism (and not anarchism), the "anarcho"-capitalists
have instead seen fit to try and appropriate the name of anarchism
and, in order to do so, ignore key aspects of anarchist theory in
the process. Little wonder, then, they try and prove their anarchist
credentials via dictionary definitions rather than from the anarchist
movement itself (see next section).
Caplan's attempt in his FAQ is an example to ignore individualist
anarchist theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand
their ideas on property and instead Caplan just concentrates on
the fact they use the word. Caplan also ignores:
their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider socialist
movement.
their opposition to capitalist property-rights in land and other scarce
resources.
their recognition that capitalism was based on usury and that it was
exploitation.
their attacks on government and capital, rather than just government.
their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
secure the full product of their labour.
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also
agreed with) and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory
investigation indicates the non-capitalist nature of their ideas
on property and the socialistic nature of their theories.
Perhaps Caplan should ponder these words of Kropotkin supporters
of the "individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians
. . . soon realise that the individualisation they so highly praise
is not attainable by individual efforts, and . . . abandon the ranks
of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberal individualism
of the classical economist." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,
p. 297]
Caplan seems to confuse the end of the ending place of ex-anarchists
with their starting point. As can be seen from his attempt to co-opt
Proudhon, Spooner and Tucker he has to ignore their ideas and rewrite
history.
In his Appendix "Defining Anarchism" we find that Caplan attempts to
defend his dictionary definition of anarchism. He does this by attempting
to refute two arguments, The Philological Argument and the Historical
Argument.
Taking each in turn we find:
Caplan's definition of "The Philological Argument" is as
follows:
"Several critics have noted the origin of the term 'anarchy,' which
derives from the Greek 'arkhos,' meaning 'ruler,' and the prefix an-,'
meaning 'without.' It is therefore suggested that in my definition the
word 'government' should be replaced with the word 'domination' or
'rulership'; thus re-written, it would then read: 'The theory or
doctrine that all forms of rulership are unnecessary, oppressive,
and undesirable and should be abolished.'"
Caplan replies by stating that:
"This is all good and well, so long as we realise that various groups of
anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance
of 'rulership.'"
However, in order to refute this argument by this method, he has
to ignore his own methodology. A dictionary definition of ruler
is "a person who rules by authority." and "rule" is
defined as "to have authoritative control over people" or
"to keep (a person or feeling etc.) under control, to dominate"
[The Oxford Study Dictionary]
Hierarchy by its very nature is a form of rulership (hier-archy)
and is so opposed by anarchists. Capitalism is based upon wage labour,
in which a worker follows the rules of their boss. This is obviously
a form of hierarchy, of domination. Almost all people (excluding
die-hard supporters of capitalism) would agree that being told what
to do, when to do and how to do by a boss is a form of rulership.
Anarchists, therefore, argue that "economic exploitation and
political domination . . . [are] two continually interacting aspects
of the same thing -- the subjection of man by man." [Errico
Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 147] Rocker made the same point,
arguing that the "exploitation of man by man and the domination
of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the
other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 18]
Thus Caplan is ignoring the meaning of words to state that "on
its own terms this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists"
because they define rulership to exclude most forms of archy! Hardly
convincing.
Strangely enough, "anarcho"-capitalist icon Murray Rothbard actually
provides evidence that the anarchist position is correct.
He argues that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force,
of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area territorial
area." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 170] This is obviously
a form of rulership. However, he also argues that "[o]bviously,
in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power
over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [Op. Cit.,
p. 173] Which, to state the obvious, means that both the
state and property is marked by an "ultimate decision-making
power" over a given territory. The only "difference" is that
Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly" acquired) and
the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force). In reality of course,
the modern distribution of property is just as much a product of
past force as is the modern state. In other words, the current property
owners have acquired their property in the same unjust fashion as
the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other. Rothbard (and
"anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have it both ways.
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
essentially the same thing:
"If the State may be said too properly own its territory, then it
is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in
that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property
because there is no private property in its area, because it really
owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects
to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other
owner who sets down rules for people living on his property." [Op. Cit.,
p. 170]
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants
to maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According
to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the "ultimate
decision-making power" over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
"make rules for everyone" who lives in an area, i.e. govern
them) but not be a state. This not a viable position for obvious
reasons.
Thus to claim, as Caplan does, that property does not generate
"rulership" is obviously nonsense. Not only does it ignore the dictionary
definition of rulership (which, let us not forget, is Caplan's own
methodology) as well as commonsense, it obviously ignores what the
two institutions have in common. If the state is to be condemned
as "rulership" then so must property -- for reasons, ironically
enough, Rothbard makes clear!
Caplan's critique of the "Philological Argument" fails
because he tries to deny that the social relationship between worker
and capitalist and tenant and landlord is based upon archy,
when it obviously is. To quote Proudhon, considered by Tucker as
"the Anarchist par excellence," the employee "is
subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience."
Without "association" (i.e. co-operative workplaces, workers'
self-management) there would be "two industrial castes of masters
and wage-workers which is repugnant to a free and democratic society,"
castes "related as subordinates and superiors." [The General
Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
Moving on, Caplan defines the Historical Argument as:
"A second popular argument states that historically, the term 'anarchism'
has been clearly linked with anarcho-socialists, anarcho-communists,
anarcho-syndicalists, and other enemies of the capitalist system. Hence,
the term 'anarcho-capitalism' is a strange oxymoron which only demonstrates
ignorance of the anarchist tradition."
He argues that "even if we were to accept the premise of this
argument -- to wit, that the meaning of a word is somehow determined
by its historical usage -- the conclusion would not follow because
the minor premise is wrong. It is simply not true that from its
earliest history, all anarchists were opponents of private property,
free markets, and so on."
Firstly, anarchism is not just a word, but a political idea and
movement and so the word used in a political context is associated
with a given body of ideas. You cannot use the word to describe
something which has little or nothing in common with that body of
ideas. You cannot call Marxism "anarchism" simply because they share
the anarchist opposition to capitalist exploitation and aim for
a stateless society, for example.
Secondly, it is true that anarchists like Tucker were not against
the free market, but they did not consider capitalism to be defined
by the free market but by exploitation and wage labour (as do all
socialists). In this they share a common ground with Market Socialists
who, like Tucker and Proudhon, do not equate socialism with opposition
to the market or capitalism with the "free market." The idea that
socialists oppose "private property, free markets, and so on"
is just an assumption by Caplan. Proudhon, for example, was not
opposed to competition, "property" (in the sense of possession)
and markets but during his lifetime and up to the present date he
is acknowledged as a socialist, indeed one of the greatest in French
(if not European) history. Similarly we find Rudolf Rocker writing
that the Individualist Anarchists "all agree on the point that
man be given the full reward of his labour and recognised in this
right the economic basis of all personal liberty. They regard free
competition . . . as something inherent in human nature . . . They
answered the socialists of other schools [emphasis added]
who saw in free competition one of the destructive elements
of capitalistic society that the evil lies in the fact that today
we have too little rather than too much competition." [quoted
by Herbert Read, A One-Man Manifesto, p. 147] Rocker obviously
considered support for free markets as compatible with socialism.
In other words, Caplan's assumption that all socialists oppose free
markets, competition and so on is simply false -- as can be seen
from the history of the socialist movement. What socialists do
oppose is capitalist exploitation -- socialism "in its wide,
generic, and true sense" was an "effort to abolish
the exploitation of labour by capital." [Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 169] In this sense the Individualist
Anarchists are obviously socialists, as Tucker and Labadie constantly
pointed out.
In addition, as we have proved elsewhere, Tucker was opposed to
capitalist private property just as much as Kropotkin was. Moreover,
it is clear from Tucker's works that he considered himself an enemy
of the capitalist system and called himself a socialist. Thus Caplan's
attempt to judge the historical argument on its own merits fails
because he has to rewrite history to do so.
Caplan is right to state that the meaning of words change over
time, but this does not mean we should run to use dictionary definitions.
Dictionaries rarely express political ideas well - for example,
most dictionaries define the word "anarchy" as "chaos" and "disorder."
Does that mean anarchists aim to create chaos? Of course not. Therefore,
Caplan's attempt to use dictionary definitions is selective and
ultimately useless - anarchism as a political movement cannot be
expressed by dictionary definitions and any attempt to do so means
to ignore history.
The problems in using dictionary definitions to describe political
ideas can best be seen from the definition of the word "Socialism."
According to the Oxford Study Dictionary Socialism is "a
political and economic theory advocating that land, resources, and
the chief industries should be owned and managed by the State."
The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, conversely,
defines socialism as "any of various economic and political theories
advocating collective or government ownership and administration
of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Clearly the latter source has a more accurate definition of socialism
than the former, by allowing for "collective" versus solely "State"
control of productive means. Which definition would be better? It
depends on the person involved. A Marxist, for example, could prefer
the first one simply to exclude anarchism from the socialist movement,
something they have continually tried to do. A right-libertarian
could, again, prefer the first, for obvious reasons. Anarchists
would prefer the second, again for obvious reasons. However neither
definition does justice to the wide range of ideas that have described
themselves as socialist.
Using dictionaries as the basis of defining political movements
ensures that one's views depend on which dictionary one uses,
and when it was written, and so on. This is why they are
not the best means of resolving disputes -- if resolution of disputes
is, in fact, your goal.
Both Kropotkin and Tucker stated that they were socialists and
that anarchism was socialistic. If we take the common modern meaning
of the word as state ownership as the valid one then Tucker and
Kropotkin are not socialists and no form of anarchism is
socialist. This is obviously nonsense and it shows the limitations
of using dictionary definitions on political theories.
Therefore Caplan's attempt to justify using the dictionary definition
fails. Firstly, because the definitions used would depend which
dictionary you use. Secondly, dictionary definitions cannot capture
the ins and outs of a political theory or its ideas on wider
subjects.
Ironically enough, Caplan is repeating an attempt made by State
Socialists to deny Individualist Anarchism its socialist title (see
"Socialism and the Lexicographers" in Instead of a Book).
In reply to this attempt, Tucker noted that:
"The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their
definitions. A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous.
But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance
by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits."
[Instead of a Book, p. 369]
And Tucker provided many quotes from other dictionaries
to refute the attempt by the State Socialists to define Individualist
Anarchism outside the Socialist movement. He also notes that any
person trying such a method will "find that the Anarchistic Socialists
are not to be stripped of one half of their title by the mere dictum
of the last lexicographer." [Op. Cit., p. 365]
Caplan should take note. His technique been tried before and it
failed then and it will fail again for the same reasons.
As far as his case against the Historical Argument goes, this
is equally as flawed. Caplan states that:
"Before the Protestant Reformation, the word 'Christian,' had referred almost
entirely to Catholics (as well as adherents of the Orthodox Church) for
about one thousand years. Does this reveal any linguistic confusion on
the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and so on, when they called themselves
'Christians'? Of course not. It merely reveals that a word's historical
usage does not determine its meaning."
However, as analogies go this is pretty pathetic. Both the Protestants
and Catholics followed the teachings of Christ but had different
interpretations of it. As such they could both be considered Christians
- followers of the Bible. In the case of anarchism, there are two
main groupings - individualist and social. Both Tucker and Bakunin
claimed to follow, apply and develop Proudhon's ideas (and share
his opposition to both state and capitalism) and so are part of
the anarchist tradition.
The anarchist movement was based upon applying the core ideas
of Proudhon (his anti-statism and socialism) and developing them
in the same spirit, and these ideas find their roots in socialist
history and theory. For example, William Godwin was claimed as an
anarchist after his death by the movement because of his opposition
to both state and private property, something all anarchists oppose.
Similarly, Max Stirner's opposition to both state and capitalist
property places him within the anarchist tradition.
Given that we find fascists and Nazis calling themselves "republicans,"
"democrats," even "liberals" it is worthwhile remembering that the
names of political theories are defined not by who use them, but
by the ideas associated with the name. In other words, a fascist
cannot call themselves a "liberal" any more than a capitalist can
call themselves an "anarchist." To state, as Caplan does, that the
historical usage of a word does not determine its meaning results
in utter confusion and the end of meaningful political debate. If
the historical usage of a name is meaningless will we soon see fascists
as well as capitalists calling themselves anarchists? In other words,
the label "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer, pure and simple, as
all anarchists have opposed capitalism as an authoritarian
system based upon exploitation and wage slavery.
To ignore the historical usage of a word means to ignore what
the movement that used that word stood for. Thus, if Caplan is correct,
an organisation calling itself the "Libertarian National Socialist
Party," for example, can rightly call itself libertarian for "a
word's historical usage does not determine its meaning." Given
that right-libertarians in the USA have tried to steal the name
"libertarian" from anarchists and anarchist influenced socialists,
such a perspective on Caplan's part makes perfect sense. How ironic
that a movement that defends private property so strongly continually
tries to steal names from other political tendencies.
Perhaps a better analogy for the conflict between anarchism and
"anarcho"- capitalism would be between Satanists and Christians.
Would we consider as Christian a Satanist grouping claiming to be
Christian? A grouping that rejects everything that Christians believe
but who like the name? Of course not. Neither would we consider
as a right-libertarian someone who is against the free market or
someone as a Marxist who supports capitalism. However, that is what
Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists want us to do with anarchism.
Both social and individualist anarchists defined their ideas in
terms of both political (abolition of the state) and economic
(abolition of exploitation) ideas. Kropotkin defined anarchism as
"the no-government form of socialism" while Tucker insisted
that anarchism was "the abolition of the State and the abolition
of usury." In this they followed Proudhon who stated that "[w]e
do not admit the government of man by man any more than the exploitation
of man by man." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the
Impossible, p. 245]
In other words, a political movement's economic ideas are just
as much a part of its theories as their political ideas. Any attempt
to consider one in isolation from the other kills what defines the
theory and makes it unique. And, ultimately, any such attempt, is
a lie:
"[classical liberalism] is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism,
and therefore simply a lie, for freedom is impossible without equality,
and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism."
[Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 46]
Therefore Caplan's case against the Historical Argument also fails
- "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer because anarchism has always,
in all its forms, opposed capitalism. Denying and re-writing history
is hardly a means of refuting the historical argument.
Caplan ends by stating:
"Let us designate anarchism (1) anarchism as you define it. Let us designate
anarchism (2) anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary
define it. This is a FAQ about anarchism (2)."
Note that here we see again how the dictionary is a very poor
foundation upon to base an argument. Again using Webster's Ninth
New Collegiate Dictionary, we find under "anarchist" - "one
who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power."
This definition is very close to that which "traditional" anarchists
have - which is the basis for our own opposition to the notion that
anarchism is merely rebellion against State authority.
Clearly this definition is at odds with Caplan's own view; is
Webster's then wrong, and Caplan's view right? Which view is backed
by the theory and history of the movement? Surely that should be
the basis of who is part of the anarchist tradition and movement
and who is not? Rather than do this, Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists
rush to the dictionary (well, those that do not define anarchy as
"disorder"). This is for a reason as anarchism as a political movement
as always been explicitly anti-capitalist and so the term "anarcho"-capitalism
is an oxymoron.
What Caplan fails to even comprehend is that his choices are false.
Anarchism can be designated in two ways:
(1). Anarchism as you define it
(2). Anarchism as the anarchist movement defines it and finds expression
in the theories developed by that movement.
Caplan chooses anarchism (1) and so denies the whole history of
the anarchist movement. Anarchism is not a word, it is a political
theory with a long history which dictionaries cannot cover. Therefore
any attempt to define anarchism by such means is deeply flawed and
ultimately fails.
That Caplan's position is ultimately false can be seen from the
"anarcho"-capitalists themselves. In many dictionaries anarchy is
defined as "disorder," "a state of lawlessness" and
so on. Strangely enough, no "anarcho"-capitalist ever uses these
dictionary definitions of "anarchy"! Thus appeals to dictionaries
are just as much a case of defining anarchism as you desire as not
using dictionaries. Far better to look at the history and traditions
of the anarchist movement itself, seek out its common features and
apply those as criteria to those seeking to include themselves
in the movement. As can be seen, "anarcho"-capitalism fails this
test and, therefore, are not part of the anarchist movement. Far
better for us all if they pick a new label to call themselves rather
than steal our name.
Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of
its history is not one of them.
|
