Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism 

This appendix exists for one reason, namely to explain why the the idea
of "anarcho"-capitalism is a bogus one. While we have covered this topic
in some detail in section F, we thought that this appendix should be
created in order to update and bring together our critique of Bryan Caplan's 
"Anarchist Theory FAQ." Caplan's FAQ is the main on-line attempt to give the
oxymoron of "anarcho"-capitalism some form of justification and so it is
worthwhile explaining, using his FAQ as the base, why such an attempt fails.

As we will prove, Caplan's FAQ fails in its attempt to prove that "anarcho"
capitalism can be considered as part of the anarchist movement and in fact his 
account involves extensive re-writing of history. This appendix is in two 
parts, a reply to Caplan's most recent FAQ release (version 5.2) and an 
older reply to version 4.1.1 (which was originally section F.10 of the FAQ).
The introduction to the reply to version 4.1.1 indicates what most anarchists
think of Caplan's FAQ and its claims of "objectivity" as so we will not
repeat ourselves here.

We have decided to include these replies in an appendix as they are really
an addition to the main body of the FAQ. Parties interested in why Caplan's
claims are false can explore this appendix, those who are interested in 
anarchist politics can read the FAQ without having to also read on-line 
arguments between anarchists and capitalists. 

We should, perhaps, thank Caplan for allowing us an opportunity of explaining
the ideas of such people as Proudhon and Tucker, allowing us to quote them
and so bring their ideas to a wider audience and for indicating that
anarchism, in all its forms, has always opposed capitalism and always will.

* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory   
  FAQ" version 5.2

	1 Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement
	2 Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
	3 Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
	4 Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism
	5 Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
	6 Appendix: Defining Anarchism

* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory 
  FAQ" version 4.1.1.

	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? 

			***********************

* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory 
  FAQ" version 5.2

1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.

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 skeptical 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."

and 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 based within 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 a
common Marxian terminology of defining Marxism as Socialism, while calling
other parts of the wider socialist movement by their self-proclaimed
names of anarchism and syndicalism. Hardly surprising that Kropotkin is 
hardly mentioned in a history of "Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).

Moreover, Kropotkin and Tucker both distinguished between two types of
anarchism as well as two types of socialism. Both of them considered 
their ideas and movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. 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. 

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 is 
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] 

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 socalist 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.

2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?

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 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." [Charles
A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_, p. 46] by mutual credit.

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_, Stewart Edwards (ed), 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." ["Anarchism", _Contemporary 
Political Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds), p. 132]

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." [Ibid.]

In fact, a definition of socialism which socialists would agree with would 
be one that stated that "the workers shall own the means of production."
Or, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat." The common agreement 
between all socialists was that capitalism was based upon wage slavery, that 
workers did not have access to the means of production and so had to sell 
themselves to the class that did. 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" [Ben
Tucker, _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." Wage labour, 
and so capitalism, would be no more and "the product [would go] to the 
producer." [from Tucker's essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in _Instead
of a Book_] In other words, the "abolition of the proletariat."

Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted workers to own and control
the means of production they used. He aimed to do this by reforming
capitalism away by creating mutual banks and other cooperatives. Here
is Kropotkin on Proudhon's reformist 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." [our emphasis]

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, he shared the common aim of all socialists (namely to
abolish capitalism) by disagreed with the means.

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_, 
Stewart Edwards (ed), p. 177]

3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?

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. 
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."

However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong. Perhaps they just did
not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated "I am
socialist" 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_, Stewart 
Edwards (ed), 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 constrasts
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_]

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.

Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" he 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."  [_On the Political Capacity 
of the Working Classes_, p. 141] 

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
cooperatives:

"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 democratizing us, revolution has launched us on the path of 
industrial democracy." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, 
Stewart Edwards (ed), 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 
cooperative associations for the running of factories and railways."
["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]

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."

4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.

That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from _Instead of
A Book_ which means that either Caplan has not looked at it (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 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 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. 

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." Proudhon was reknown 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)."

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 prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [_Instead of 
a Book_, p. 363]

And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. wage slavery) and wished 
that "there should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State Socialism 
and Anarchism" in _Instead of a Book_]

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."

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] 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 protray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government 
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner 
also fails. If Proudhon was a socialist, then his self-proclaimed followers 
will also be socialists - and, unsuprisingly, Tucker called himself a 
socialist and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist 
movement.

5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism

Caplan tries to build upon the nonexistent 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_]

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 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]

Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always 
combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to exploitation. 
Anarchism and capitalism are two *different* political ideas with specific 
(and opposed) meanings - to deny these meanings is to deny history and the 
development of ideas.

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. Secondly, Caplan lets the cat
out the bag by noting that this "adoption" involved a few warnings -
more specifically, the attempt to rubbish and ignore the underlying
socio-economic ideas of Tucker and Spooner.

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 may point
out that Individualist anarchist ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and
social anarchist ones with liberal ones).

So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism was
a combination of the ideas of Proudhon and Spencer, what the "anarcho"
capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the Proudhon (i.e. socialist) 
aspect of their theories. However, that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was 
not an anarchist, but a right-wing Libertarian (a "champion of the 
capitalistic class" as Tucker put it). 

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]

and Barbara Goodwin agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true place
is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism. [_Using
Political Ideas, p. 148]

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, exploitation and usury.

- 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 realize
that the individualization 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."

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.

6 - Appendix: Defining Anarchism

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 realize 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 to 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.

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.  

Thus Caplan's critique of the "Philological Argument" fails because he 
tries to deny that the social relationship between worker and capitalist 
is based upon *archy,* when it obviously is. 

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. 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 wage labour (as do all socialists). 
In addition, as we have proved elsewhere, Tucker was opposed to capitalist 
private property just as much as Kropotkin was but in a different way. 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.

So, one's view depends on *which* dictionary one uses, and *when* it was 
written which 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 this modern meaning of the word 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 away. 
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." [_Instead of a Book_, 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 do 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 wage slavery.

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.

Both social and individualist anarchists defined their ideas in terms of
both political (abolition of the state) *and* economic (abolition
of wage slavery) 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 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 Historial 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 desiginate
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?

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, its 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.

Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of its
history is not one of them.

			***************************

* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's  "Anarchist Theory 
  FAQ" version 4.1.1.

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.

F.10.1 Is anarchism purely negative?

[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 labour
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. 

F.10.2 Anarchism and Equality

[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.

F.10.3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?

[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 labour.

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.*

F.10.4 Anarchism and dissidents

[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.

F.10.5 How would anarcho-capitalism work? 

[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 favour a government limited to supplying police, courts,
a legal code, and national defence." 

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 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 defence 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 defence 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
"defence 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 "defence 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
"defence 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 "defence 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 honours 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 F.6.2, the "Mafia" objection to
"anarcho"-capitalist defence 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 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 have difficulty
surviving (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," they can do whatever 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.)