Background and origins of the debate
In a sense, anarchism is not so much a political philosophy as it is an historical tendency of thought that favors freedom and rejects coercive authority, a tendency which has most-likely existed from prehistoric times and which continues to exist to this day. It was not until 1840, the year in which Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published his famous work entitled What is Property?, that the term "anarchist" was first adopted to describe this tendency of thought. Since then, anarchism as a political movement has grown and developed into a remarkably rich and diverse tradition. Until the 1950s, this tradition was almost uniformly anti-state and anti-capitalist, meaning that it rejected both the coercive political power of the state and the economics of capitalism as well. However, in the years following World War II, in the United States, a new pro-capitalist "anarchist" philosophy emerged out of the tradition of classical liberalism (see libertarianism), arguably with the addition or influence of certain ideas from individualist anarchism as well. Dubbed "anarcho-capitalism" by its proponents, such as Murray N. Rothbard, it sought to reform anarchism by opening it up to capitalist ideas.
In its embrace of free market capitalist economics, anarcho-capitalism is very different from the rest of anarchism, which, as previously mentioned, has historically been anti-capitalist. This difference alone has been the source of much contoversy. In addition, many left-anarchists, pointing to what they say is the long tradition of anarchist history in which anarcho-capitalists played no role, question the accuracy of anarcho-capitalists calling themselves "anarchists" at all, and suggest instead the terms "neo-classical liberal" or "anti-state capitalist". Most anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, claim that their own anti-statist tradition also has a rich history; they identify strongly with 19th-century individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker. Still, this identification is controversial, given that Tucker rejected several institutions essential to anarcho-capitalism, like usury, non-possessive property, and capital itself.
Economics
In their views about individualism and their rejection of the state, anarcho-capitalists agree on at least some level with utopian anarchists such as William Godwin or left-anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin. However, they do not follow Bakunin at all in his analysis of capitalist economics, which is similar to Karl Marx's as expressed in Das Kapital. For example, anarcho-capitalists reject Marx's labor theory of value, leaning instead toward the economic subjectivism of the Austrian School.
Anarcho-capitalists think it is legitimate for individuals to voluntarily enter a subservient relationship where one person submits to another or to a group of others (some have even included slavery in this category, so long as it is entered into voluntarily), presumably in exchange of some other service. They oppose such an arrangement only if it is compelled by force or fraud.
As for property rights and capitalist rent, anarcho-capitalists agree with Frederic Bastiat's (a friend and precursor to Molinari) argument in the debate he had with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
Anarcho-capitalists defend the right of individuals to freely organize in cooperatives, but think that cooperatives are generally a bad idea, because people are risk-averse. See this article about enterprise in a "free" society (http://bastiat.net/en/Bastiat2001/pascal.salin.html).
Social and political organization
Both traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalists believe that the other group's notions about power, hierarchy, authority, etc., are vague and inconsistent. Anarcho-capitalism seeks to develop an anarchist philosophy based on principles of natural law and certain ideas of rationalism. Some anarcho-capitalists have been influenced by the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, though she vehemently rejected anarcho-capitalism.
Like individualist anarchists, anarcho-capitalists think that individuals' needs supersede those of the collective, and that no collective decision has legitimacy without the consent of the individuals in the collective. Many left-anarchists would argue that they believe the exact same thing; even so, many anarcho-capitalists loathe the kind of participatory democracy (see also consensus) envisioned by left-anarchists.
Anarcho-capitalists think that anarcho-communists either avoid or miss some essential issues concerning justice and protection: law-making, and law-enforcement, and judicial prosecution. They might ask: how do you avoid and resolve conflicts in a free society without resorting to some kind of hierachy? Anarcho-capitalists themselves suggest that the protective and judicial roles of the state should be replaced by private companies that would enforce property rights. They propose that property rights are exactly the conceptual tool required for a justice system to exist without the need for centralized law-making and law-enforcement. Traditional anarchists usually view this as an argument against anarchy itself, since they see no meaningful difference between enforcement by capitalist business and enforcement by government. Furthermore, they respond that resolvement of conflict need not be based on coercive authority represented by enforced property rights and institutional judiciary. Amongst many alternatives, they sometimes propose that such resolution can take the form of communities mediating conflicts between voluntary participants, accepting requests for aid from those seeking community reintegration, and disassociating from aggressors as a means of self-defense. However Anarcho-capitalists find this a naive approach to conflict resolution, asking how the individual is protected against prevailing group opinion. They believe this is especially pertinent in the case of individuals who do not want to join the Anarcho-socialist's collectives. Anarcho-capitalists then return the accusation levelled at themselves; what is the difference between a democratic government and a 'democratic' collective?
All of these arguments are rejected by traditional anarchists, who claim that individuals are protected against prevailing group opinion by their ability to leave a collective, their ability to influence the collective, and the inability of consensus-based collectives to enforce their decisions on the unwilling.
External links
|
