criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism has been criticized by all classical anarchists and be advocates newly developed branch of anarchism like green anarchism.

Objections to the idea of profit

Critics point to profit as the driving motive of capitalists. If a profit cannot be made, a good is not produced, regardless of how many people "subjectively value" it. They point to the origins of profit itself.

In order to make more money, money must be transformed into capital, i.e., workplaces, machinery and other capital goods. By itself, however, anarchists argue that capital (like money) produces nothing. Rather, capital only becomes productive in the labor process when workers use capital.

"And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor--that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the works of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." Bakunin

Under capitalism, workers not only create sufficient value (i.e. produced commodities) to maintain existing capital and their own existence, they also produce a surplus value. This surplus expresses itself as a surplus of goods, i.e. an excess of commodities compared to the number a workers' wages could buy back.

"The working man cannot. . . repurchase that which he has produced for his master. It is thus with all trades whatsoever. . . since, producing for a master who in one form or another makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their own labour than they get for it." Proudhon, What is Property?, p. 189

In other words, anti-capitalists claim that profit represents unpaid labor. Proudhon argued that the price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads such as wear and tear on machinery) when those goods were produced. Thus, the labour represented by these surplus products is the source of the profit. In practice, of course, this surplus has to be realised on the market. The difference between the cost price and the market price of each individual item is the value of the work that went into producing surplus product, and yields its profit at the point of sale.

Libertarian socialists sometimes use an analogy to illustrate this perspective.Template:Or They give the example of an elite poker-player who can use equipment (capital), take risks, delay gratification, engage in strategic behaviour, innovate, and even cheat, in order to earn large winnings, even doing so repeatedly.Template:Who However, in the process of these transaction no surplus product results; the gambler's winnings are simply redistributions from others with no new production occurring. Thus, risk-taking, abstinence, entrepreneurship, etc. might be necessary for an individual to accumulate wealth, and might in some instances increase the yield of production (and in other cases decrease it) but they are not sufficient, in themselves, for the process of production. To generate new wealth, labour is needed and capital can only increase its yield. Of course each of these phenomena can aid in more efficient production, thus increasing yields, but anarchists argue that such endeavors should only receive the product of their benefit to the degree of labor being invested in them by such innovators, risk-takers, etc, rather than being little more than diversions thrown up by capitalists to excuse profit taking by those who are performing no labor at all (this would be a socialist view, anarcho-communists adhere to the maxim "from each according to ability, to each according to need", so all have the same right to a good quality of life and the satisfaction of their needs, regardless of how socially valued is their work).

Thus, libertarian socialists believe that in order for a profit to be generated within capitalism two things are required. Firstly, a group of workers to work the available capital. Secondly, that they must produce more value than they are paid in wages. If only the first condition is present, all that occurs is that social wealth is redistributed between individuals. With the second condition, a surplus proper is generated. In both cases, however, anarchists hold that workers are exploited, for without their labor there would be no goods to facilitate or ultimately posibilitate a redistribution of existing wealth nor surplus products.

Surplus values

The surplus value produced by labour is divided between profits, interest and rent (or, more correctly, between the owners of the various factors of production other than labour). In practice, this surplus is used by the owners of capital for: (a) investment (b) to pay themselves dividends on their stock, if any; (c) to pay for rent and interest payments; and (d) to pay their executives and managers (who are sometimes identical with the owners themselves) much higher salaries than workers; (e) taxes. As the surplus is being divided between different groups of capitalists, this means that there can be clashes of interest between (say) industrial capitalists and finance capitalists. For example, a rise in interest rates can squeeze industrial capitalists by directing more of the surplus from them into the hands of rentiers. Such a rise could cause business failures and so a slump (indeed, raising interest rates is potentially a key way of regulating working class power by generating unemployment to discipline workers by fear of the sack, although they can fight back as has happened recently in Argentina with road blockades or piquetes). The surplus, like the labour used to reproduce existing capital, is embodied in the finished commodity and is realised once it is sold. This means that workers do not receive the full value of their labour, since the surplus appropriated by owners for investment, etc. represents value added to commodities by workers -- value for which they are not paid.

Thus, libertarian socialists contend that capitalist profits (as well as rent and interest payments) are in essence unpaid labour, and hence capitalism is based on exploitation.

"Products, say economists, are only bought by products. This maxim is property's condemnation. The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief. What is Property?, p. 170

It is this appropriation of wealth from the worker by the owner which differentiates capitalism from the simple commodity production of artisan and peasant economies. All anarchists agreed with Bakunin when he stated that:

"What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working…[and so] the power and right to live by exploiting the work of someone else…those…[who are] forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 180

Capitalist counterpoint

Proponents of capitalist economics disagree with these views, claiming that although most capitalists also work either directly producing goods or managing workers and resources, capital or savings does allow them and others to live without working during retirement or illness. However, capitalists do not believe that they are exploiting the workers while doing this, but rather exploiting their own past productivity and deferral of consumption (doubted by leftists because of the historical origin of capital concentration, which is hardly considered legitimate, the primitive appropriation phase according to Marxists, which is crudely, the product of violence) Template:Dubious. Profits are not, according to capitalists, the product of exploitation of workers, and the wages paid to workers out of the surplus over other costs are more surplus than the workers could produce on their own without capital equipment (something not contended by anarchists or the left in general, as they don't believe it affects their argument). Capitalists, by deferring their own consumption and accumulating savings (the purest example is the self made man, born low class and climbing to the top, whose significance and preponderance are highly disputed), are able to devote resources to improving the productivity of workers and ultimately increasing the wealth and through research the knowledge of all society. Capitalists and landlords contend they are paid the value of their contributions to output (including capital). Human beings, according to capitalists, freely choose to do the actual work and it is usually more worth their time than without the benefit of productivity-increasing capital equipment.

Critics argue that work is the only option available to workers for survival; if the capitalists are actually being paid the value of their contributions, then they should simply enter a collective as workers, rather than reserving the right to appropriate part of the surplus labor even in those instances when they do not contribute (but as they have the capital, usually through inheriting it, or a significant part of it, they are able to gain capital at a rate far greater than the rate a working class person could ever achieve). Capitalists thus have various arguments for why owners should deserve to keep the products made through the labor of others. Also, capitalists maintain that capitalism is not exploitative, and that capitalists seldom keep the products others make, unless they anticipate the market value of those products being greater in the future.

Private property

There is some debate about the question of private property and economic organization. Social anarchists claim that the existence of property results in wage slavery, while certain anti-capitalist individualist anarchists and mutualists argue for private property and wages owned and controlled directly by workers themselves in the form of labor-owned cooperative firms and associations. For Proudhon, "strong workers' associations…would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis." Anarcho-capitalists consider capitalistic individualization of property and territory to be in accordance with the state of nature, and collectivization as requiring a central state and/or an uncommon degree of benevolence. However, social anarchists argue that state collectivization or collectivization in the form of taking away private possessions is undesirable and argue that stateless, decentralized collectivization of public land and means of productions ensures that no individual can exploit or rule over another.

The libertarian socialist perspective

Libertarian socialists, specifically anarcho-communists as well as some post-left anarchists, argue that private property is a fiction enforced by illegitimate institutions which do not account for the needs and desires of the individuals they affect, and that beyond "personal possession" of immediate goods, the idea of property is only maintained by institutions which enforce property laws. When a business hierarchy enforces these rules, it is no different from a government enforcing such rules.

They propose that beyond personal possession, resources should be collectively managed, particularly capital goods used as means of economic production. The form of this collective management can vary greatly, but in all cases those affected by economic decisions have some representation in them. On one end of the spectrum lie the syndicalists, who propose a planned economy based on a series of collectives that rely fundamentally on consensus and free association. On the other end are the individualists, who advocate a free market without the constraints of usury, wage, and rent. They believe that property beyond personal possession should be handled by mutualist banks which print their own money and loan it free of interest.

Regardless of how an economy is managed, anarchists believe that ownership of goods should not extend beyond personal property. What anarchists consider to be personal property is often vaguely defined, but by most accounts it means unique items that are part of a consistent use-pattern in their day to day lives, or those which have emotional/sentimental value for the possessor, ie. clothing, mementos, art, furniture and other things that people commonly move from home to home.

Statism

One criticism of anarcho-capitalism that is unique to anarchism is that capitalism can never be anarchistic because capitalism can never truly be "stateless". While anarcho-capitalists contend that private property does not need a state to enforce it, anti-capitalist anarchists point to private "defence associations", in a capitalist market system, as a form of private armies, claiming such access to force would effectively make private capitalists and their territory a "state" (defining "state" in the classical Weberian definition of anything that has what is considered to be a "legitimate monopoly of violence"). Some social anarchists refer to this as "private statism" and hold it up as proof positive that anarcho-capitalism does not truly oppose the state as private capitalist property would need state-like functions to maintain itself from possible 'invasion' . They also point to anarcho-capitalist 'law codes', such as those proposed by Murray Rothbard that would, in the words of David Friedman, allow different defence firms to make their own law codes and sell them to bidders . Social anarchists (as well as Mutualist anarchists and anti-capitalist individualist anarchists) argue, Template:bquote

Post-left anarchist Bob Black adds "To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else…They don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it."

Anarcho-capitalists would respond by arguing that defence associations can be purchased by anyone with sufficient funds and believe that a truly free market would equalize the opportunity to access such firms. They also believe that private property is a value in and of itself and thus is justifiably defended against perceived 'invaders' and 'law-breakers'. Arguing that defence firms and libertarian market court systems are not a form of state or authoritarian since they are a private market function. Murray Rothbard argues "Libertarian lawyers and jurists [would determine] rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures." and that judges would "not [be] making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason."

Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker also supported replacing the security functions of the state with private defense that charges for its services of protecting liberty and property. Tucker says:
""defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices""

However, individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner's support of private defence associations differed from both Tucker's and anarcho-capitalists' support of them. While he supported the idea of private defence firms, he argued that a society with unequal conditions would lead to a society of unfree associations. He argued for the right of everyone to hold land and have access to defence association, arguing that without such, "[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will." As far as a judicial system, many of these individualists such as Lysander Spooner supported a jury trial with the right of the jury to nullify law, "Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception," . Peter Sabini argues about Rothbard

""[w]ithin Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors...""

Wage labor

One anarchist perspective is that the employer-employee relationship is based on employer coercion. According to this view, the oppressive restrictions of public and private property, upheld variously by states, corporations, and individuals, allow employers to blackmail employees into working for use of resources that they would otherwise have free access to either individually through mutualist banks or collectively through voluntarily associated communes and syndicates. Traditional anarchists claim that such oppression should be resisted. However, they generally follow Kant in maintaining that freedom can not be given as a privilege by some third party, but must instead be won through the struggles of the oppressed themselves (citing for example that being freed is not being free, that freedom if unused, for example by not participating in collective deliberation and planning and just obeying, new masters will arise). As such, libertarian socialists encourage employees to resist and obstruct economics based on hierarchical power and what they consider to be wage slavery. This is known as direct action. Many also believe that anarchists are obliged to aid such groups when they call for help in their struggles. Ultimately, traditional anarchists believe that all forms of institutional authority must be resisted, because of their coercive nature.

Anti-capitalist anarchists often argueTemplate:weasel-inline that, just as no ordinary person (as opposed to someone who is independently wealthy) can refuse to work, so there is no freedom involved in the negotiation of a contract with an employer who has the ability to dictate the terms of any contract to dispossessed employees who amount to little more than wage slaves living at the whim of the wealthy. Such anarchistsTemplate:Who also reject the claim that their objection to capitalist economics is based on the necessity of labor. They mostly agree that some form of manual labor (which they often distinguish from employment) is currently necessary. However, they do not agree that the necessity for manual labor requires that the form of this labor be dictated by privileged individuals who control the wealth and resources of the society. Instead, they argue that individual liberty requires that the laborers themselves control the means and mode of their labor, rather than having their actions dictated by others. Thus, those who are required to labor for survival should have representation in the use and distribution of the resources they interact with and distribute. They do not believe that the mere ability to disassociate from a given employer is an adequate form of representation, given that the employers as a class can continue to dictate use of resources and compel others into wage-slavery once the association is disbanded. Furthermore, anti-capitalist anarchists argue that being a servant with the "freedom" to choose your master does not represent actual "freedom" in any meaningful sense. Often, they also argue that a worker's "freedom" to choose his employer is no different from that same worker's "freedom" to choose what state he lives under (by moving to another country if necessary, and possible), because there is no real difference between the coercion of private companies and the coercion of the state - and thus it makes no sense to abolish one while preserving the other.

Traditional individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, (who identified his American individualist anarchism as "Anarchistic Socialism") are opposed to both capitalism and anarchist-communism. They support wage labor as long as the employers and employees are paid equally for equal hours worked and neither party has authority over the other (this approach was put into practice in American individualist anarchist colonies such as Utopia, which was organized by Josiah Warren). By following this principle, no individual profits from the labor of another. Benjamin Tucker described the wages received in such an employer-employee relationship as the individual laborer's "full product." He envisioned that in such a society, every worker would be self-employed and own their own private means of production, free to walk away from employment contracts. Tucker called communist-anarchism "pseudo-anarchism," because it opposes wages and private property, fearing that collectivization would subdue individuals to group mentality and rob workers of the full product of their labor [1].

Equality

Many anarcho-capitalists believe that inequality is not a major concern so long as everyone has "equality of opportunity". Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard argued "the 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed to inequality." They believe that because of a person's self-ownership, that any freedom given up in a laissez-faire marketplace would be a voluntary contract (consent) and believe there is nothing authoritarian about capitalist employer-employee relationships in such a condition, "[t]here is nothing authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract." .

Murray Rothbard defines equality as, "A and B are 'equal' if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute…There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be 'equal' in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all their attributes." and argues, "men are not uniform,…the species, mankind, is uniquely characterised by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation: in short, inequality." This runs counter the concept of equality amongst most social and mutualist anarchists. Most anarchists would argue that freedom without equality simply gives more freedom to those who are supposedly "superior" and that equality without freedom is a form of oppression. Social anarchist Alexander Berkman argued,

"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity…Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations…Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence."

Some anarcho-capitalists, who consider themselves part of the individualist anarchist tradition, draw upon the writings of early individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner who argued that unequal wealth would not equal an unequal society. However, said anarchists believed that equality of condition, equality of access to the means of production, and equal opportunity would counteract any potential tyranny in a market society. "Spooner and Godwin insist that inequality corrupts freedom. Their anarchism is directed as much against inequality as against tyranny" and "[w]hile sympathetic to Spooner's individualist anarchism, they [Rothbard and David Friedman] fail to notice or conveniently overlook its egalitarian implications." Tucker himself argued for a society with "the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty."

Emergence of hierarchies

Anarchists oppose hierarchy (a ranked form of authority) of any form and argue that any capitalist economic system, no matter how level the initial starting conditions, will naturally give rise to hierarchies. This analysis draws heavily on game theory to show the emergence of social conditions undesirable to anarchists from capitalist systems.Template:Or Manuel De Landa observes in 1000 Years of Nonlinear History that market systems act like an abstract machine whereas the natural process is for relatively flat meshworks of producer-consumers to transform into hierarchies over time; hierarchies of meshworks as well as meshworks of hierarchies. These monopolistic hierarchies are not necessarily large enterprises (corporations), but can be taken to mean dominant cities in the world economic scale, such as Venice in the 14th century, wherein rich merchants enjoyed enormous economic advantage over rivals in other cities. Template:fn Fernand Braudel alleges that since capitalism's roots in 13th-century Italy, it has always been oligopolistic if not monopolistic. Capitalism has always been associated with large enterprises, with respect to their operational markets. It is thus that Delanda labels capitalism as actually being "antimarket", rather than a market-driving force as most people believe.

From this and other analyses, anti-capitalist anarchists conclude that capitalism gives rise to undesirable social relations; the subjugation of geographically disadvantaged populations, class inequities within populations, and general microeconomic instability. Capitalism, being an antimarket force, sets agendas dictated by large enterprises and the wealthy; since it is a hierarchy-creating and maintaining system, anarchists find it objectionable.

Bias of Marginalist economists

Certain anarchists object to the portrayal of economics as a "value-free science".

"[A]ll the so-called laws and theories of political economy are in reality no more than statements of the following nature:" "'Granting that there are always in a country a considerable number of people who cannot subsist a month, or even a fortnight, without accepting the conditions of work imposed upon them by the State, or offered to them by those whom the State recognises as owners of land, factories, railways, etc., then the results will be so and so.' "So far middle-class political economy has been only an enumeration of what happens under the just-mentioned conditions -- without distinctly stating the conditions themselves. And then, having described the facts which arise in our society under these conditions, they represent to us these facts as rigid, inevitable economic laws." — Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 179

Theories can pursue truth or serve vested interests. In the latter capacity they will incorporate only concepts suited to attaining the results desired. An economic theory, for example, may highlight profits, quantities of output, amount of investment, and prices but leave out class struggle, alienation, hierarchy and bargaining power. Then the theory will serve capitalists, and, since capitalists tend to pay economists' wages and endow their universities, economists and their students who comply, will benefit as well.

Anarchist critics contend that General equilibrium analysis and marginalism is made to order for the ruling class and that marginalism ignores the question of production and concentrates on exchange. It argues that any attempt by working people to improve their position in society (by, for example, unions) is counter-productive, it preaches that "in the long run" everyone will be better off and so present day problems are irrelevant (and any attempt to fix them counterproductive) and the capitalists are entitled to their profits, interest payments and rent. Anarchists argue that an economic theory that justifies inequality, "proves" that profits, rent and interest are not exploitative and argues that the economically powerful be given free rein will have more use-value ("utility") to the ruling class than those that do not.

It has also been pointed out that historically, the anarchist-communist economic theories published by Kropotkin and others have been ignored or intentionally sidelined by historians.

Monetary systems

Within the realm of anarchist labor issues is the issue of the monetary system. While all anarchists are against the current monetary system, there is disagreement as to whether or not there should be a monetary system. Alexander Berkman was an anarchist against the monetary system. In his book What is Anarchism?,[2] Berkman argues that in an anarchist society, money would become unnecessary. Within anarchy, all occupations are viewed as equally beneficial to society. Since the concept of value is different for everyone and cannot be determined, it is argued that it should not be set and one's contribution to society through their occupation entitled them to be a part of it. Within this system, there is a free exchange of goods, without the need for money. Money in its current form is a hierarchical system, the exception being when all people are paid equal salaries. The argument goes further, however, to question the purpose of money if people are paid equally. Certainly those who agree with this would also note that a monetary system would open a vulnerability for some to acquire more of it and create a class system. Not every anarchist, however, is against the idea of money. Individualist and Mutualist anarchists see currency as a tangible form of workers receiving the "full product of their labor". They support mutual banking (some individualists support no banking at all to keep exchange rates constant) and local currency as opposed to national currency. Others see money as simply an index for exchanging goods and that its existence wouldn't necessarily create a class system. Anarcho-capitalists prefer free banking in which inter-bank competition assures market discipline and price stability because it tends to require relatively hard currencies such as gold instead of fiat currency.

External links

• Anarchism, Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism An anarcho-capitalist take on the subject.
• An Anarchist FAQ containing arguments against capitalism.