In the Christian Science Monitor article “Do anarchists at tea parties really want to kill all politicians?” Ross Kenyon challenges the following claim made by House minority leader John Boehner (R) of Ohio:
“I’ve been to my share of tea party events. Let me tell you about these events. Yep, there are some disaffected Republicans there. There are always some Democrats there. Always a couple of anarchists who want to kill all of us in public office.”
Ross goes on to rebut the claim that anarchism is violent or in contradiction to the values of liberty. It is truly amazing that a pro-liberty student is published in the Christian Science Monitor, and our cause is lucky to have an advocate that writes so eloquently:
Market anarchism is such a basic and consistent idea, an idea so in tune with the values professed by many tea partiers, that it’s only natural for anarchists to show up and challenge fellow freedom-lovers to adopt it.
I agree that a consistent philosophy that values and respects the peaceful choices of the tea partiers and their neighbors is indeed a threat to Boehner and his ilk, but not a threat of the type he claims. It’s not a death threat, it’s the threat of a pink slip.
Congratulations, Ross!
I’ll say outright that I am not opposed to collaboration between anarchists and “libertarians” — the collective I’m in has certainly done this before, primarily around defending free movement for everyone.
However, libertarian in the recent American context (as opposed to what it has meant here until relatively recently) — a term that was itself expropriated from anarchists in Europe where it means something quite different — I do think on the same count that it’s important to point out that while perhaps you are making a partial defense of some elements of “anarchism” by dint of your attack on the State, unless you also oppose capitalism you are not an anarchist.
For instance, there are other anti-state ideologies that likewise ought not be considered anarchism. Anarchism is a specific thing, characterized in particular by opposition to the state as well as capital, among other things. Consider the recent AK Press title “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism” for an excellent treatment of this. I don’t defend that entire work, but I do think that their analysis that anti-state just isn’t good enough to be considered anarchist is completely on target.
It doesn’t mean we can’t perhaps find common cause on some things, but clarity is important when it comes to politics.
Solidarity! Feel free to hit me up if you want to continue this conversation through firesneverextinguished.blogspot.com.
Thanks for the response! I also think there is quite a bit to ally on. The longer I have been a libertarian the more I identify with the left. I believe markets would lead to a pretty egalitarian society, and good thing for it. Removing corporate privilege and domination which originates primarily through the state would make for a much happier and moral world. I'd love to keep the conversation going. I'm willing to be persuaded should better philosophies come along.
A few of the main problems I see with what is billed as anarcho-capitalism (a term I’ll use here even though I disagree that it is in fact “anarcho-” at all): first, anarchism has historically meant the expropriation of the capitalist class (violently even); secondly, it has historically meant the abolition of money (the means through which accumulated capital is transferred to the owner of the means of production); third, the capitalist-worker relationship is inherently an unfree one; and, fourth, most contemporary anti-capitalist theory, anarchism included, now sees capitalist relations extending far beyond the workplace and into the colonization of every day life (communication, culture, etc). Anarcho-cap, it seems, has no answer for any of those. If, after the rev, I am still a subject of a capitalist, even if the state is gone, I am still a subject. Anarchists have always fought for self-management, uncompromisingly. Maintaining any boss-worker relationship naturally nullifies that. I think anarcho-cap also maintains a myth that there can be a truce between the producer of capital (the worker, generally but not exclusively speaking) and the expropriator of capital (the capitalist) if only the state is eliminated. Further, it is the state that protects that accumulation of capital through the cops and military. While I tend to think that capitalism itself would collapse the moment the state ceased to exist, if it did continue on, it would mean only more exploitation by the bosses. Without an expropriation of the ruling class, you’re still left with the inequalities of capitalism. I’ve never met a libertarian or an anarcho-cap who is comfortable with the expropriation of the capitalist class (whether through general strike, insurrection, etc). And yet that’s exactly what is necessary, not to mention that it’s what is central to anarchist philosophy. That’s just my initial thoughts.
I will gladly chat with you, but please, use paragraph breaks. Staring at a massive paragraph daunts my mind!
1.) If the capitalists acquired their wealth through state power and not productivity, I don't believe they have any right to it.
2.) I know there are lots of anarchists who are against money. I'm more of an anarchist without adjectives in this way. I'd like to free society and people through voluntaryism and see which systems work best and are the most just. I suspect money works very well and would continue to do so, but would be open to other forms of exchange being superior.
3.) I don't have an a priori objection to wage labor, but I do find it undesirable. It would be outmoded pretty quickly in a free society where Tucker's Four Monopolies were abolished. A free market would provide for many many many more coops, collectives, and worker-owned and operated businesses. I think that is a great thing to aim for.
4.) I'd need more details here (maybe an article)? But sure, the corporations virtually run the entire planet and economy.
My biggest concern is keeping means consistent with the ends. So yes, I completely acknowledge, the same as you, that anyone who now has wealth through state power has not earned property in a just manner. However, I don't think very many small businessmen consciously understand what is manifesting itself as capitalism. Most people are just market actors bumbling along. So I'm not sure exactly how we are to deal with people like that who just respond the best way they can to the cards they're given.
However, the ultra rich who actively manipulate the state to their advantage are another story.
We are pleased to announce that The Palmetto State Quartet has just been recognized by the International Association of Independent Recording Artists as a Top 10 recording artist. According to SoundClick(tm), PSQ’s new single, “Don’t That Sound Like Heaven” has reached the number 8 position out of more than 51,000 singles currently being tracked.
The song presents a powerful message about unborn children who were aborted and how they find a loving, peaceful home with their Heavenly Father.
Don’t that sound like heaven has also been adopted as the theme song for anti-abortion organization, Fight 4 Life.
The song may be reviewed at the following link. Just copy it and paste it into your browser. It will take you to the song.
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cf…
Thank you for your prayers and continued support for Palmetto State Quartet.
Please visit us at http://www.psqworld.com after design
It goes beyond corporations running the planet to capitalism colonizing and commodifying every aspect of our lives. Take, for instance, the way that cell phones and social networking commodifies things that were quite impossible to commodify before, such as conversation or cultural production.
Indeed, increasingly Capital reaches into our very cells and DNA. Capital, in its never-ending quest for new markets (either to discover them or to create them), is constantly taking gift or volunteer relations and attacking them. Consider the Skymall executive you’re having at your conference as a prime example of this. The capitalist sees this as providing a service or creating a new market, but the anti-capitalist sees it as destroying a human relation that preceded it, or in fact imposing a market where none was necessary.
There are many problems with this but one big one is that the human values that once determined relations become replaced by the values of Capital (profit, exploitation, commodity, etc). Another problem is that capitalist relations are hierarchical. If we want our ducks in a row, then we have to oppose capitalism on those terms as well as others.
Another problem is that Capital is produced by humans and extracted from those who produce it (surplus value) and given to the capitalist precisely because of the authoritarianism inherent in the worker/owner relationship (for instance). Capitalism therefore cannot be non-hierarchical or else profit would disappear. Likewise, the capitalist relation is always coercive. It has to be. No one gives up their surplus value for free.
At the end of the day, capitalism violates the very principles that those who uphold the “anarcho-cap” and libertarian ideal defend most: the non-aggression principle. “Anarcho-capitalism” is therefore in contradiction to itself.
As far as the cultural aspects, I don't really see any reason to oppose the fact that technology has made it easier to communicate, nor that someone is making a living doing it. It isn't in and of itself negative or exploitative. If it could be done for free, in a free society, it would be. No one is going to pay for what could be had without cost.
If a market isn't necessary, in a free society it wouldn't exist. If its an artificial creation of a society dominated by state power, without state power, you will need no fear of it.
Regarding the labor theory of value, I'm still learning about that, and am willing to entertain the idea of it, even though it is almost universally rejected in favor of marginalism. I just picked up Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, where he addresses some of these concerns.
What I'm essentially positing is that the position of a capitalist (someone who orders the factors of production) would be outmoded to the greatest extent possible in a free society. Where it was not in the absent of state power, he/she/z would be there by virtue of the productive capacity added.
No one gives up "surplus value," but oftentimes people are willing to trade it away to avoid taking the risk of investment themselves, or when others can guide production better. I think most of this would be done by workers' councils and federations in a free society though just through the market processes of competition.
In the way you frame capitalism, anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction, yes, but the capitalism you hate is pretty similar to the ones libertarians hate, they just call it a different name (mercantilism/corporatism).