There have been a few "anarchist" FAQ's produced before. Bryan Caplan's anarchism FAQ is one of the more recent. While appearing to be a "neutral" statement of anarchist ideas, it is actually in large part an "anarcho"-capitalist FAQ. This can be seen by the fact that anarchist ideas (which he calls "left-anarchist") are given less than half the available space while "anarcho"-capitalist dogma makes up the majority of it. Considering that anarchism has been around far longer than "anarcho"-capitalism and is the bigger and better established movement, this is surprising. Even his use of the term "left anarchist" is strange as it is never used by anarchists and ignores the fact that Individualist Anarchists like Tucker called themselves "socialists" and considered themselves part of the wider socialist movement. For anarchists, the expression "left anarchist" is meaningless as all anarchists are anti-capitalist.
Caplan also frames the debate only around issues which he is comfortable with. For example, when discussing "left anarchist" ideas he states that "A key value in this line of anarchist thought is egalitarianism, the view that inequalities, especially of wealth and power, are undesirable, immoral, and socially contingent." This, however, is not why anarchists are egalitarians. Anarchists oppose inequalities because they undermine and restrict individual and social freedom.
Taking another example, under the question, "How would left-anarchy work?", Caplan fails to spell out some of the really obvious forms of anarchist thought. For example, the works of Bookchin, Kropotkin, Bakunin and Proudhon are not discussed in any detail. His vague and confusing prose would seem to reflect the amount of thought that he has put into it. Being an "anarcho" capitalist, Caplan concentrates on the economic aspect of anarchism and ignores its communal side. The economic aspect of anarchism he discusses is anarcho-syndicalism and tries to constrast the confederated economic system explained by one anarcho-syndicalist with Bakunin's opposition to Marxism. Unfortunately for Caplan, Bakunin is the source of anarcho-syndicalism's ideas on a confederation of self-managed workplaces running the economy. Therefore, to state that "many" anarchists "have been very skeptical of setting up any overall political structure, even a democratic one, and focused instead on direct worker control at the factory level" is simply false. The idea of direct local control within a confederated whole is a common thread through anarchist theory and activity, as any anarchist could tell you.
Lastly, we must note that after Caplan posted his FAQ to the "anarchy-list," many of the anarchists on that list presented numerous critiques of the "anarcho"-capitalist theories and of the ideas (falsely) attributed to social anarchists in the FAQ, which he chose to ignore.
Therefore, as can be seen from these few examples, Caplan's "FAQ" is blatantly biased towards "anarcho-capitalism" and based on the mischaracterizations and the disemphasis on some of the most important issues between "anarcho-capitalists" and anarchists. It is clear that his viewpoint is anything but impartial.
This section will highlight some of the many errors and distortions in that FAQ. Numbers in square brackets refer to the corresponding sections Caplan's FAQ.
[1]. Caplan, consulting his American Heritage Dictionary, claims:
"Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is
bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be
difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold."
The last sentence is ridiculous. It is not at all difficult to
find a more fundamental "defining tenet" of anarchism. We can do so
merely by analyzing the term "an-archy," which is composed of the Greek
words an, meaning "no" or "without," and arche, meaning literally "a
ruler," but more generally referring to the principle of rulership, i.e.
hierarchical authority. Hence an anarchist is someone who advocates
abolishing the principle of hierarchical authority -- not just in
government but in all institutions and social relations.
Anarchists oppose the principle of hierarchical authority because it
is the basis of domination, which is not only degrading in itself but
generally leads to exploitation and all the social evils which follow from
exploitation, from poverty, hunger and homelessness to class struggle and
armed conflict.
Because anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, domination, and
exploitation, they naturally seek to eliminate all hierarchies, as the
very purpose of hierarchy is to facilitate the domination and (usually)
exploitation of subordinates.
The reason anarchists oppose government, then, is because government is
one manifestation of the evils of hierarchical authority, domination,
and exploitation. But the capitalist workplace is another. In fact, the
capitalist workplace is where most people have their most frequent and
unpleasant encounters with these evils. Hence workers' control -- the
elimination of the hierarchical workplace through democratic
self-management -- has been central to the agenda of classical and
contemporary anarchism from the 19th century to the present. Indeed,
anarchism was born out of the struggle of workers against capitalist
exploitation.
To accept Caplan's definition of anarchism, however, would mean that
anarchists' historical struggle for workers' self-management has never
been a "genuine" anarchist activity. This is clearly a reductio ad
absurdum of that definition.
Caplan has confused a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
Opposition to government is a necessary condition of anarchism, but not a
sufficient one. To put it differently, all anarchists oppose government,
but opposition to government does not automatically make one an
anarchist. To be an anarchist one must oppose government for anarchist
reasons.
Self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose government for anarchist
reasons. That is, they oppose it not because it is a manifestation of
hierarchical authority, but because government authority often conflicts
with capitalists' authority over the enterprises they control. By
getting rid of government with its minimum wage laws, health and safety
requirements, union rights laws, environmental standards, child labor
laws, and other inconveniences, capitalists would have even more power to
exploit workers than they already do. These consequences of
"anarcho"-capitalism are diametrically opposed to the historically
central objective of the anarchist movement, which is to eliminate
capitalist exploitation.
We must conclude, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists at
all. In reality they are capitalists posing as anarchists in order to
attract support for their laissez-faire economic project from those who
are angry at government. This scam is only possible on the basis of the
misunderstanding perpetrated by Caplan: that anarchism means nothing
more than opposition to government.
Better definitions of anarchism can be found in other reference works.
For example, in Grollier's Online Encyclopedia we read: "Anarchism
rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well
as political." According to this more historically and etymologically
accurate definition, "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since
it does not reject hierarchical authority in the economic sphere (which has
been the area of prime concern to anarchists since day one). Hence
it is bogus anarchism.
[5.] On the question "What major subdivisions may be made among
anarchists?" Caplan writes: "Unlike the left-anarchists,
anarcho-capitalists generally place little or no value on equality,
believing that inequalities along all dimensions -- including income
and wealth -- are not only perfectly legitimate so long as they 'come
about in the right way,' but are the natural consequence of human
freedom."
This statement is not inaccurate as a characterization of
"anarcho"-capitalist ideas, but its implications need to be made clear.
"Anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value on equality --
particularly economic equality -- because they know that under their
system, where capitalists would be completely free to exploit workers to
the hilt, wealth and income inequalities would become even greater than
they are now. Thus their references to "human freedom" as the way in
which such inequalities would allegedly come about means "freedom of
capitalists to exploit workers;" it does not mean "freedom of workers
from capitalist exploitation."
But "freedom to exploit workers" has historically been the objective only
of capitalists, not anarchists. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalism again
shows itself to be nothing more than capitalism attempting to pass itself
off as part of the anarchist movement -- a movement that has been
dedicated since its inception to the destruction of capitalism! One would
have to look hard to find a more audacious fraud.
[7.] In this section ("Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?") Caplan
writes: "Outside of the Anglo-American political culture, there has been
a long and close historical relationship between the more orthodox
socialists who advocate a socialist government, and the anarchist
socialists who desire some sort of decentralized, voluntary socialism.
The two groups both want to severely limit or abolish private property..."
The statement that anarchists want to severely limit or abolish private
property is misleading if it is not further explained. For the way it
stands, it sounds like anarchism is just another form of coercive "state"
(i.e. a political entity that forcibly prevents people from owning private
property), whereas this is far from the case.
It is not that anarchists want to pass laws making private property
illegal. Rather they want to restructure society in such a way that the
means of production are freely available for workers to use. This does
not mean "anarchist police" standing around with guns to prohibit people
from owning private property. Rather, it means dismantling the coercive
state agencies that make private property possible, i.e., the departments
of real police who now stand around with guns protecting private property.
Once that occurs, anarchists maintain that capitalism would be impossible,
since capitalism is essentially a monopoly of the means of production,
which can only be maintained by organized coercion. For suppose that in
an anarchist society someone (call him Bob) somehow acquires certain
machinery needed to produce widgets (a doubtful supposition if
widget-making machines are very expensive, as there will be little wealth
disparity in an anarchist society). And suppose Bob offers to let workers
with widget-making skills use his machines if they will pay him "rent,"
i.e. allow him to appropriate a certain amount of the value embodied in
the widgets they produce. The workers will simply refuse, choosing
instead to join a widget-making collective where they have free access to
widget-making machinery, thus preventing Bob from living parasitically on
their labor.
In this scenario, private property was "abolished," but not through
coercion. Indeed, it was precisely the abolition of organized coercion
that allowed private property to be abolished.
In addition, for Caplan to claim that anarchism is not the same thing as
socialism, he has to ignore anarchist history. For example, the Individualist
anarchists called themselves "socialists", as did social anarchists. Therefore, within the "Anglo-American political culture" all types of
anarchists considered themselves part of the socialist movement. This can be
seen not only from Kropotkin's or Bakunin's work, but also in Tucker's (see Instead of a Book). So to claim that the "Anglo-American" anarchists did not have "a long and close historical relationship" with the wider socialist movement is simply false.
[9.] On the question "How would left-anarchy work?" Caplan writes: "Some
other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are quite unclear.
Whether dissidents who despised all forms of communal living would be
permitted to set up their own inegalitarian separatist societies is rarely
touched upon. Occasionally left-anarchists have insisted that small
farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivized, but the limits
of the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian way of life are rarely
specified."
This is a straw man. "Left" (i.e. real) anarchist theory clearly implies
the answer to these questions.
Regarding "dissidents" who wanted to set up their own "inegalitarian
separatist societies," if the term "inegalitarian" implies economic
inequalities due to private property, the answer is that private property
requires some kind of state, if not a central state then private security
forces ("private-state capitalism"), as advocated by "anarcho"-capitalists,
in order to protect private property. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists
are asking if an anarchist society will allow the existence of states!
Thus suppose that in a hypothetical libertarian socialist society, Bob
tries to set up private security forces to protect certain means of
production, e.g. farmland. By the hypothesis, if Bob merely wanted to
work the land himself, there would be no reason for him go to the trouble
of creating a private state to guard it, because use-rights guarantee that
he has free access to the productive assets he needs to make a living.
Thus, the only plausible reason Bob could have for claiming and guarding
more farmland than he could use himself would be a desire to create a
monopoly of land in order to exact tribute from others for the privilege
of using it. But this would be an attempt to set up a system of feudal
exploitation in the midst of a free community. Thus the community is
justified in disarming this would-be parasite and ignoring his claims to
"own" more land than he can use himself.
In other words, there is no "right" to adopt an "inegalitarian way of
life" within a libertarian community, since such a right would have to be
enforced by the creation of a coercive system of enslavement, which would
mean the end of the "libertarian" community. To the contrary, the
members of such a community have a right, guaranteed by "the people in
arms," to resist such attempts to enslave them.
The statement that "left" anarchists have "occasionally" insisted that
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivized is too
weak. No responsible left libertarian advocates forced collectivization,
i.e. compelling others to join collectives. Self-employment is always an
option. Thus during the Spanish Revolution, small farmers who did not
wish to join collective farms were allowed to keep as much land as they
could work themselves. After perceiving the advantages of collectives,
however, many joined them voluntarily [see Sam Dolgoff, ed., The
Anarchist Collectives]. To claim that social anarchists "occasionally"
oppose forced collectivisation is a smear, pure and simple, with little
basis in anarchist activity and even less in anarchist theory.
[10.] This section (How would anarcho-capitalism work?) contains Caplan's
summary of arguments for "anarcho"-capitalism, which he describes as an
offshoot of Libertarianism. Thus:
"So-called 'minarchist' libertarians such as Nozick have argued that the
largest justified government was one which was limited to the protection
of individuals and their private property against physical invasion;
accordingly, they favor a government limited to supplying police, courts,
a legal code, and national defense."
The first thing to note about this argument is that it is stated in such a
way as to prejudice the reader against the left-libertarian critique of
private property. The minarchist "libertarian," it is said, only wants to
protect individuals and their private property against "physical
invasion." But, because of the loose way in which the term "property" is
generally used, the "private property" of most "individuals" is commonly
thought of as personal possessions, i.e. cars, houses, clothing,
etc. (For the left-libertarian distinction between private property and
possessions, see section B.3.1.) Therefore the argument makes it appear that
right libertarians are in favour of protecting personal possessions
whereas left-libertarians are not, thus conjuring up a world where, for
example, there would be no protection against one's house being
"physically invaded" by an intruder or a stranger stealing the shirt off
one's back!
By lumping the protection of "individuals" together with the protection of
their "private property," the argument implies that right libertarians
are concerned with the welfare of the vast majority of the population,
whereas in reality, the vast majority of "individuals" don't own any
private property (i.e. means of production) -- only a handful of
capitalists do. Moreover, these capitalists use their private property to
exploit the working class, leading to impoverishment, alienation, etc., and
thus damaging most individuals rather than "protecting" them.
Caplan goes on:
"This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic theory,
according to which private property and unregulated competition generally
lead to both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly) a
high rate of economic progress."
Caplan does not mention the obvious problems with this "theory," e.g. that
during the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the US there was vast
wealth disparity, with an enormous mass of impoverished people living in
slums in the major cities -- hardly an "efficient" allocation of resources
or an example of "progress." Of course, if one defines "efficiency" as
"the most effective means of exploiting the working class" and "progress"
as "a high rate of profit for investors," then the conclusion of the
"theory" does indeed follow.
Next we get to the meat of the defense of "anarcho"-capitalism:
"Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own logic
against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state could not
be turned over to the free market. And so, the anarcho-capitalist
imagines that police services could be sold by freely competitive firms;
that a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between
firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom,
precedent, and contract."
Indeed, the functions in question could certainly be turned over to the
"free" market, as was done in certain areas of the US during the 19th
century, e.g. the coal towns that were virtually owned by private coal
companies. We have already discussed the negative impact of that
experiment on the working class in section F.6.2. Our objection is not
that such privatization can't be done, but that it is an error to call it
a form of anarchism. In reality it is an extreme form of laissez-faire
capitalism, which is the exact opposite of anarchism. The defense of
private power by private police is hardly a move towards the end of
authority, nor are collections of private states an example of anarchism.
Caplan:
"The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing
reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration and
mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability to
supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of
necessity a government monopoly."
That the law code of the state is being defended by private companies is
hardly a step towards anarchy. This indicates exactly why an "anarcho"-
capitalist system will be a collection of private states united around a
common, capitalistic, and hierarchical law code. In addition, this system
does not abolish the monopoly of government over society represented by
the "general libertarian law code," nor the monopoly of power that
owners have over their property and those who use it. The difference between
public and private statism is that the boss can select which law
enforcement agents will enforce his or her power.
The threat to freedom and justice for the working class is clear. The
thug-like nature of many private security guards enforcing private power
is well documented. For example, the beating of protesters by "private
cops" is a common sight in anti-motorway campaigns or when animal right
activists attempt to disrupt fox hunts. The shooting of strikers during
strikes occurred during the peak period of American laissez-faire
capitalism. However, as most forms of protest involve the violation of
"absolute" property rights, the "justice" system under "anarcho"-capitalism
would undoubtedly fine the victims of such attacks by private cops.
It is also interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalist "hails" what are actually
symptoms of social breakdown under capitalism. With increasing wealth
disparity, poverty, and chronic high unemployment, society is becoming
polarized into those who can afford to live in secure, gated communities
and those who cannot. The latter are increasingly marginalized in ghettos
and poor neighbourhoods where drug-dealing, prostitution, and theft become
main forms of livelihood, with gangs offering a feudalistic type of
"protection" to those who join or pay tribute to them. Under
"anarcho"-capitalism, the only change would be that drug-dealing and
prostitution would be legalized and gangs could start calling themselves
"defense companies."
Caplan:
"In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government services
would take over all legitimate security services. One plausible market
structure would involve individuals subscribing to one of a large number
of competing police services; these police services would then set up
contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between members of
each others' agencies. Alternately, police services might be 'bundled'
with housing services, just as landlords often bundle water and power
with rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to
residents in gated communities and apartment complexes."
This is a scenario designed with the middle and upper classes in mind.
But under capitalism, the tendency toward capital concentration leads to
increasing wealth polarization, which means a shrinking middle class and a
growing underclass. Thus the number of people who could afford to buy
protection and "justice" from the best companies would continually
decrease. For this reason there would be a growing number of people at
the mercy of the rich and powerful, particularly when it comes to matters
concerning employment, which is the main way in which the poor would be
victimized by the rich and powerful (as is indeed the case now).
Caplan:
"The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police
would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual
rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to
jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second,
firms will want to develop long-term business relationships, and hence be
willing to negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term
profitability. And third, aggressive firms would be likely to attract
only high-risk clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs (a
problem parallel to the well-known 'adverse selection problem' in e.g.
medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people are
especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the price when
riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a
uniform price regardless of risk)."
The theory that "failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly
destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits" can be faulted in two
ways. Firstly, if warfare would be bad for profits, what is to stop a
large "defense association" from ignoring a smaller one's claim? If
warfare were "bad for business," it would be even worse for a small
company without the capital to survive a conflict, which could give big
"defense associations" the leverage to force compliance with their business
interests. Price wars are often bad for business, but companies sometimes
start them if they think they can win. Secondly -- and this is equally
if not more likely -- a "balance of power" method to stop warfare has
little to recommend it from history. This can be seen from the First World
War and feudal society.
What the "anarcho"-capitalist is describing is essentially a system of
"industrial feudalism" wherein people contract for "protection" with armed gangs of their choice. Feudal societies have never been known to be
peaceful, even though war is always "unprofitable" for one side or the
other or both. The argument fails to consider that "defense companies,"
whether they be called police forces, paramilitaries or full-blown armies, tend
to attract the "martial" type of authoritarian personality, and that this
type of "macho" personality thrives on and finds its reason for existence in
armed conflict and other forms of interpersonal violence and intimidation.
Hence feudal society is continually wracked by battles between the forces
of opposing warlords, because such conflicts allow the combatants a chance to
"prove their manhood," vent their aggression, obtain honors and titles,
advance in the ranks, obtain spoils, etc. The "anarcho" capitalist has
given no reason why warfare among legalized gangs would not continue under
industrial feudalism, except the extremely lame reason that it would not
be profitable -- a reason that has never prevented war in any known feudal
society.
It should be noted that the above is not an argument from "original sin."
Feudal societies are characterized by conflict between opposing
"protection agencies" not because of the innate depravity of human beings
but because of a social structure based on private property and hierarchy,
which brings out the latent capacities for violence, domination, greed,
etc. that humans have by creating a financial incentive to be so. But this
is not to say that a different social structure would not bring out latent
capacities for much different qualities like sharing, peaceableness, and cooperation, which human beings also have. In fact, as Kropotkin argued in Mutual Aid and as recent anthropologists have confirmed in greater detail,
ancient societies based on communal ownership of productive assets and little
social hierarchy were basically peaceful, with no signs of warfare for thousands
of years.
Caplan:
"Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that their
'private police agencies' would be equivalent to today's Mafia -- the cost
advantages of open, legitimate business would make 'criminal police'
uncompetitive. (Moreover, they argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the
artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs,
prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might
kill each other over turf, but liquor-store owners generally do not.)"
As we have pointed out in section F.6, the "Mafia" objection to
"anarcho"-capitalist defense companies is a red herring. The biggest
problem would not be "criminal police" but the fact that the rich would be
able to buy better police protection and "justice" than the poor and that
the "general" law code these companies would defend would be slanted towards
the interests and power of the capitalist class. And as we also noted, such
a system has already been tried in 19th-century America, with the result that
the rich reduced the working class to a serf-like existence, capitalist
production undermined independent producers (to the annoyance of
individualist anarchists at the time), and the result was the emergence of
the corporate America that "anarcho"-capitalists say they oppose.
Caplan:
"Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no objection
to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim that punishment
does not deter crime to be the height of naivete. Traditional punishment
might be meted out after a conviction by a neutral arbitrator; or a system
of monetary restitution (probably in conjunction with a prison factory
system) might exist instead."
Let us note first that in disputes between the capitalist class and the
working class, there would be no "neutral arbitrator," because the rich
would either own the arbitration company or influence/control it through
the power of the purse (see section F.6). In addition, "successful"
arbitrators would also be wealthy, therefore making neutrality even more
unlikely.
Second, the left-libertarian critique of punishment does not rest, as
"anarcho"-capitalists claim, on the naive view that intimidation and
coercion aren't effective in controlling behaviour. Rather, it rests on
the premise that capitalist societies produce large numbers of criminals,
whereas societies based on equality and community ownership of productive
assets do not.
The argument for this is that societies based on private property and
hierarchy inevitably lead to a huge gap between the haves and the
have-nots, with the latter sunk in poverty, alienation, resentment, anger,
and hopelessness, while at the same time such societies promote greed,
ambition, ruthlessness, deceit, and other aspects of competitive
individualism that destroy communal values like sharing, cooperation, and
mutual aid. Thus in capitalist societies, the vast majority of "crime"
turns out to be so-called "crimes against property," which can be traced
to poverty and the grossly unfair distribution of wealth. Where the top
one percent of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90
percent combined, it is no wonder that a considerable number of those on
the bottom should try to recoup illegally some of the maldistributed
wealth they cannot obtain legally. (In this they are encouraged by the
bad example of the ruling class, whose parasitic ways of making a living
would be classified as criminal if the mechanisms for defining "criminal
behavior" were not controlled by the ruling class itself.) And most of the
remaining "crimes against persons" can be traced to the alienation,
dehumanization, frustration, rage, and other negative emotions produced
by the inhumane and unjust economic system.
Thus it is only in our societies like ours, with their wholesale
manufacture of many different kinds of criminals, that punishment appears
to be the only possible way to discourage "crime." From the
left-libertarian perspective, however, the punitive approach is a band-aid
measure that does not get to the real root of the problem -- a problem
that lies in the structure of the system itself. The real solution is the
creation of a non-hierarchical society based on communal ownership of
productive assets, which, by eliminating poverty and the other negative
effects of capitalism, would greatly reduce the incidence of criminal
behaviour and so the need for punitive countermeasures.
Finally, as to the desirability of a "prison factory system," we will
merely note that, given the capitalist principle of "grow-or-die," if
punishing crime becomes Big Business, one can be sure that those who
profit from it will find ways to ensure that the "criminal" population keeps
expanding at a rate sufficient to maintain a high rate of profit and growth.
Caplan:
"Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the
apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David
Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the
need for a generally recognized libertarian legal code (which he thinks
could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American
common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of
plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands
of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is
probably overstated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for
consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the
law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property
right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits
that 'focal points' including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe
and somewhat standardize the menu of available legal codes."
The argument that "consumer demand" would determine a "philosophically
neutral" content of the law cannot be sustained. Any law code will
reflect the philosophy of those who create it. Under "anarcho"-capitalism,
as we have noted (see section F.6), the values of the capitalist rich
will be dominant and will shape the law code and justice system, as they
do now, only more so. The law code will therefore continue to give priority
to the
protection of private property over human values; those who have the most
money will continue being able to hire the best lawyers; and the best (i.e.
most highly paid) judges will be inclined to side with the wealthy and to
rule in their interests, out of class loyalty (and personal interests).
Caplan:
"Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or worker-owned
firms would be penalized or prohibited in an anarcho-capitalist society. It
would be more accurate to state that while individuals would be free to
voluntarily form communitarian organizations, the anarcho-capitalist simply doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent."
There is good reason for this doubt. Worker cooperatives would not be
widespread or prevalent in an "anarcho"-capitalist society for the same
reason that they are not widespread or prevalent now: namely, that the
socioeconomic, legal, and political systems would be structured in such as
way as to automatically discourage their growth.
As we will explain in more detail in section J.5.2, the reason why there are not
more producer cooperatives is structural, based on the fact that
cooperatives have a tendency to grow at a slower rate than capitalist
firms. This is a good thing if one's primary concern is, say, protecting
the environment, but fatal if one is trying to survive in a competitive
capitalist environment.
Under capitalism, successful competition for profits is the fundamental
fact of economic survival. This means that banks and private investors
seeking the highest returns on their investments will favour those
companies that grow the fastest. Under such conditions, capitalist firms
will attract more investment capital, allowing them to buy more
productivity-enhancing technology and thus to sell their products more
cheaply than cooperatives. Hence there will be pressure on the
cooperatives to compete more effectively by adopting the same cost-cutting
and profit-enhancing measures as capitalist firms. Such measures will
include the deskilling of workers; squeezing as much "productivity" as is
humanly possible from them; and a system of pay differentials in
which the majority of workers receive low wages while the bulk of profits
are reinvested in technology upgrades and other capital expansion that
keeps pace with capitalist firms. But this means that in a capitalist
environment, there tend to be few practical advantages for workers in
collective ownership of the firms in which they work.
This problem can only be solved by eliminating private property and the
coercive statist mechanisms required to protect it (including private states
masquerading as "protection companies"), because this is the only way to
eliminate competition for profits as the driving force of economic
activity. In a libertarian socialist environment, federated associations
of workers in cooperative enterprises would coordinate production for
use rather than profit, thus eliminating the competitive basis of the
economy and so also the "grow-or-die" principle which now puts
cooperatives at a fatal economic disadvantage. (For more on how such an
economy would be organized and operated, as well as answers to objections,
see section I.)
Caplan:
"However, in theory an 'anarcho-capitalist' society might be filled with
nothing but communes or worker-owned firms, so long as these associations
were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined voluntarily and capital
was obtained with the consent of the owners) and individuals retained the
right to exit and set up corporations or other profit-making,
individualistic firms. "
It's interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalists are willing to allow
workers to set up "voluntary" cooperatives so long as the conditions are
retained which ensure that such cooperatives will be unsuccessful (i.e.
private property and private states), but they are unwilling to allow
workers to set up cooperatives under conditions that would ensure their
success (i.e. the absence of private property and private states). This
reflects the usual vacuousness of the right-libertarian concepts of
"freedom" and "voluntarism."
In other words, these worker-owned firms would exist in and be subject to
the same capitalist "general libertarian law code" and
work in the same capitalist market as the rest of society. So,
not only are these cooperatives subject to capitalist market forces, they
exist and operate in a society defined by capitalist laws. As discussed
in Section F.2, such disregard for the social context of human action shows
up the "anarcho" capitalist's disregard for meaningful liberty.
All Caplan is arguing here is that as long as people remain within the
(capitalist) "law code" then they can do what they like. However, what
determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent to
which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them. This is as
true of an "anarcho"-capitalist society as it is of any other. In other words,
if more and more people reject the basic assumptions of capitalism, the more
coercion against anarchistic tendencies will be required. Saying that
people would be free to experiment under "anarcho"-capitalist law (if they
can afford it, of course) does not address the issue of changes in social
awareness (caused, by example, by class struggle) which can make such "laws"
redundant. So when all is said and done, "anarcho"-capitalism just states
that as long as you accept their rules, you are free to do what you like.
How generous of them!
Caplan:
"On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all from
the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatized and opened
to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic behavior should
be done away with."
The "anarcho"-capitalist's professed desire to "do away" with the
"regulation" of economic behaviour is entirely disingenuous. For, by
giving capitalists the ability to protect their exploitative monopolies of
social capital by the use of coercive private states, one is thereby
"regulating" the economy in the strongest possible way, i.e. ensuring that
it will be channeled in certain directions rather than others. For
example, one is guaranteeing that production will be for profit rather
than use; that there will consequently be runaway growth and an endless
devouring of nature based on the principle of "grow or die;" and that the
alienation and deskilling of the workforce will continue. What the
"anarcho"-capitalist really means by "doing away with the regulation of
economic behaviour" is that ordinary people will have even less
opportunity than now to democratically control the rapacious behaviour of
capitalists. Needless to say, the "regulation of personal" behavior would
not be done away with in the workplace, where the authority of the
bosses would still exist and you would have follow their petty rules and
regulations.
Caplan:
"Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able to
care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot.
(Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly
increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of
taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.)"
Notice the implication that poverty is now caused by laziness and
irresponsibility rather than by the inevitable workings of an economic
system that requires a large "reserve army of the unemployed" as a
condition of profitability. The continuous "boom" economy of
"anarcho"-capitalist fantasies is simply incompatible with the fundamental
principles of capitalism. To requote Michael Kalecki, "Lasting full
employment is not at all to [the] liking [of business leaders]. The
workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be
anxious 'to teach them a lesson'" as "'discipline in the factories' and
`political stability' are more appreciated by business leaders than
profits. Their class interest tells them that lasting full employment is
unsound from their point of view and that unemployment is an integral
part of the 'normal' capitalist system" [Political Aspects of Full
Employment, 1943]. (See section C.7, "What causes the capitalist business
cycle?," for a fuller discussion of this point.)
1 - Is anarchism purely negative?
2 - Anarchism and Equality
3 - Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
4 - Anarchism and dissidents
5 - How would "anarcho"-capitalism work?