|Part of the Politics series on|
|Part of a series on|
The nature of capitalism is a polarizing issue among anarchists, who advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations. Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful as well as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Capitalism is generally considered by scholars to be an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor which has generally been opposed by anarchists historically. Since capitalism is variously defined by sources and there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category, the designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.
Anarcho-capitalists argue that capitalism is the absence of coercion and therefore fully compatible with the philosophy of anarchism; they claim that an effort to put a stop to what they consider voluntary hierarchy is inconsistent with the philosophical tradition of freedom present in anarchist thought. Some supporters also argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalist author and theorist Murray Rothbard, who coined the term itself and developed such philosophy from the 1950s through the 1970s, stated that individualist anarchism is different from capitalism due to the individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value. Most anarchist commentators do not consider anarcho-capitalism as a legitimate form of anarchism due to perceived coercive characteristics of capitalism. In particular, they argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion in violation of anarchist principles.
Ultimately, many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all, or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism, seeing it instead as a form of New Right libertarianism.
- 1 Anarchist criticism of capitalism and economic issues
- 2 Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
- 3 See also
- 4 References
- 5 External links
Anarchist criticism of capitalism and economic issues
It has been pointed out that historically the anarcho-communist economic theories published by Peter Kropotkin and others have been ignored or intentionally sidelined by historians. Furthermore, some anarchists like Kropotkin object to the portrayal of economics as a value-free science, arguing in his Revolutionary Pamphlets:
[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 recognizes 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.
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?, 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 distribution 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 to question the purpose of money if people are paid equally. Indeed, 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. However, not all anarchists oppose the idea of money. Individualist anarchists and mutualists 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 would not necessarily create a class system.
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". W. Duncan Reekie argues that because of a person's self-ownership any freedom given up in a laissez-faire marketplace would be a voluntary contract (consent) and that there is nothing authoritarian about capitalist employer-employee relationships in such a condition, saying: "There 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".
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". Thus, Rothbard argues that "men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality". This runs counter the concept of equality amongst most anarchists as they 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. Indeed, collectivist anarchist Mikhail Bakunin famously proclaimed: "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". With equality meaning equal liberty, Bakunin also argued that "I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation". As a further confirmation of equality's misunderstanding, social anarchist Alexander Berkman similarly argued in The ABC of Anarchism:
"But will not life under Anarchy, in economic and social equality mean general leveling?" you ask. No, my friend, quite the contrary. Because 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 American 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. Indeed, Spooner and William 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 D. 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".
There is some debate about the question of private property and economic organization which is mainly caused by the meaning of private property. Social anarchists claim that the existence of private property (productive property) results in wage slavery while certain anti-capitalist individualist anarchists and mutualists argue for private property (personal property and possessions) and wages owned and controlled directly by workers themselves in the form of labor-owned cooperative firms and associations. For Pierre-Joseph 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". This is not supported by anarcho-capitalists and one major issue and divide within anarchism and anarcho-capitalism which cause the latter as not being recognized as part of anarchism remains that of private property and its meaning. By property, or private property, ever since Proudhon's book What is Property?, published in 1840, anarchists meant possession (or what other socialists, including Marxists and communists, distingue as personal property) which he considered as liberty ("Property is liberty") versus productive property (such as land and infrastructure, or what Marxists terms the means of production and the means of labor) which he considered as theft ("Property is theft"), causing him to also say "Property is impossible". However, individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker started calling possession as property, or private property. Anarcho-capitalists generally make no such distinction. Such distinction is extremely important to anarchists and other socialists because in the capitalist mode of production private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent. Instead, anarchists make the following distinctions:
- Personal property, or possession, includes items intended for personal use (e.g. one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, vehicles and sometimes money). It must be gained in a socially fair manner and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.
- Anarchists generally agree that private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g. artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas. In this context, private property and ownership means ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions.
- To anarchists and socialists alike, the term private property refers to capital or the means of production while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
Anarcho-capitalists generally support wage labor and oppose workplace democracy which most anarchists support, claiming that wage labor is voluntary. However, most anarchists argue that certain capitalist transactions, including wage labor, are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of in a capitalist society requires coercion which violates both anarchist principles and anarcho-capitalism's non-aggression principle itself.
Traditional individualist anarchist such as Benjamin Tucker (who identified his individualist anarchism as anarchistic socialism) are opposed to both capitalism and compulsory communism. Such anarchists 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, organized by Josiah Warren). By following this principle, no individual profits from the labor of another. 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 communism 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.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that espouses anything voluntary is moral, including a voluntary employee/employer hierarchy which anarchists reject. Anarcho-capitalists advocate the elimination of centralised state in favour of self-ownership and individual sovereignty, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalism developed from radical American anti-state libertarianism and individualist anarchism, drawing from Austrian School economics, study of law and economics and public choice theory. Anarcho-capitalists, distinguished from minarchists who advocate a small Jeffersonian night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals and their properties from foreign and domestic aggression; and from anarchists who seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of private property and the flow of capital, hold that in the absence of statute (law by arbitrary autocratic decrees, or bureaucratic legislation swayed by transitory political special interest groups) society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a voluntary society). In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors selected by consumers rather than centrally through confiscatory taxation. Along with all other goods and services, money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market and personal and economic activities would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies which tend to become corrupt in proportion to their monopolization. Business regulations such as corporate standards, public relations, product labels, rules for consumer protection, ethics and labor relations would be regulated voluntarily via the use of competitive trade associations, professional societies and standards bodies. In theory, this would establish market-recourse for businesses' decisions and allow the market to communicate effectively with businesses by the use of consumer unions instead of centralized regulatory mandates for companies imposed by the state which anarcho-capitalists argue is inefficient due to regulatory capture.
Anarcho-capitalists generally consider that their philosophy predates the socialist forms of anarchism as according to them various theorists like Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari and Jean-Baptiste Say have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. However, the first person to use the term was Murray Rothbard, who synthesized in the mid-20th century elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner (while rejecting their labor theory of value and the norms they derived from it). A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow". This pact would recognize self-ownership, property, contracts and tort law in keeping with the universal non-aggression principle, with anarcho-capitalists arguing that it represents the only pure form of anarchism.
Conversely, critics within anarchism do not believe that anarcho-capitalism can be considered to be a part of the anarchist movement due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism as incompatible with capitalism. Indeed, throughout most of its history anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism which they believe can be maintained only by state violence. Anarchists generally follow Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in opposing ownership of workplaces by capitalists and aim to replace wage labor with workers' associations. These anarchists also agree with Peter Kropotkin's comment that "the origin of the anarchist inception of society [lies in] the criticism [...] of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society" rather than in simple opposition to the state or government. They argue that the wage system is hierarchical and authoritarian in nature and consequently capitalism cannot be anarchist. Most early individualist anarchists, including Tucker and Spooner who Rothbard claimed as anarcho-capitalist influences, considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists [who see] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism". Many defined themselves as socialists. These early individualist anarchists defined capitalism in various ways, but it was often discussed in terms of 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". Excluding these, they tended to support free trade, free competition and varying levels of private property such as mutualism based on occupation and use property norms. It is this distinction which has led to the rift between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, with the latter supporting the homestead principle. Historically, anarchists considered themselves socialists and opposed to capitalism, therefore anarcho-capitalism is considered by many anarchists today as not being a form of anarchism. Anarchist organisations such as the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (Spain) and the Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland) generally take an explicitly anti-capitalist stance. When in the 20th century several economists began to formulate a form of radical American libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism, this has met resistance from those who hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive or statist and many anarchists and scholars do not consider anarcho-capitalism to properly cohere with the spirit, principles, or history of anarchism. While other anarchists and scholars regard anarchism as referring only to opposition to the non-privatisation of all aspects of the state and do consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, Gary Chartier has joined Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman and Chris Matthew Sciabarra in maintaining that—because of its heritage, emancipatory goals and potential—radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists can and should call themselves socialists, echoing the language of American individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and British Thomas Hodgskin. In particular, Chartier has argued that proponents of a genuinely free market, termed freed market to distinguish them from the common conception which these left-libertarians (referred to as left-wing market anarchists to distingue themselves from anarcho-capitalists, or market-oriented left-libertarians who believe markets to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges) should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global anti-capitalist movement while emphasizing that the abuses the anti-capitalist movement highlights result from state-tolerated violence and state-secured privilege rather than from voluntary cooperation and exchange. Like anarcho-capitalists, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets, but they maintain that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical and pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race. While anarcho-capitalists who argue for private property which supports absentee and landlordism ownership rather than occupation and use property norms as well as the principle of homesteading are considerated right-libertarians rather than anarchists (this is due to anarchism generally viewing any absentee ownership and ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate and seeing the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation as advocated by some anarcho-capitalists as anathema to traditional schools of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise), other anarcho-capitalists are closer to mutualism and are considered part of free-market anarchism which argue that a true free-market or laissez-faire system would be best served under socialism rather than capitalism. As such, Chartier has argued that anarcho-capitalists should reject capitalism and call themselves free-markets advocates, writing:
[I]t makes sense for [freed-market advocates] to name what they oppose "capitalism." Doing so calls attention to the freedom movement's radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren't confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary people around the world who use "capitalism" as a short-hand label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their lives.
Criticism of anarcho-capitalism
One criticism is that anarcho-capitalism turns justice into a commodity as private defense and court firms would favour those who pay more for their services. Indeed, Albert Meltzer argued that since anarcho-capitalism promotes the idea of private armies such as private defense agencies, it actually supports a "limited State". Thus, Meltzer contends that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering it".
Many anarcho-capitalists believe that negative rights should be recognized as legitimate, but positive rights should be rejected. Some critics, including Noam Chomsky, reject the distinction between positive and negative rights, with Chomsky arguing:
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
Most anarchists argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion which violates both anarchist principles and anarcho-capitalism's non-aggression principle itself.
David Graeber noted his skepticism about anarcho-capitalism along the same lines:
To be honest I'm pretty skeptical about the idea of anarcho-capitalism. If a-caps imagine a world divided into property-holding employers and property-less wage laborers, but with no systematic coercive mechanisms[;] well, I just can't see how it would work. You always see a-caps saying "if I want to hire someone to pick my tomatoes, how are you going to stop me without using coercion?" Notice how you never see anyone say "if I want to hire myself out to pick someone else's tomatoes, how are you going to stop me?" Historically nobody ever did wage labor like that if they had pretty much [any] other option. Similarly when markets start operating outside the state (and they never start outside the state, but sometimes they start operating beyond it), they almost immediate change their character, and stop operating on pure calculating competition, but on other principles. So I just don't think something like they envision would ever happen.
Anarchists generally view any ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate. While anarchists, including market anarchists such as mutualists, adamantly oppose absentee ownership, anarcho-capitalists have strong abandonment criteria in which one maintains ownership until one agrees to trade or gift it. Anarchists critics of this view tend to have comparatively weak abandonment criteria as one loses ownership when one stops personally occupying and using it. Furthermore, the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation is anathema to traditional schools of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise.
Anarchist schools of thought encompass not only a range of individual schools, but also a considerable divergence in the use of some key terms. Some terms such as socialism have been subject to multiple definitions and ideological struggle throughout the period of the development of anarchism. Others such as capitalism are used in divergent and often contradictory ways by different schools within the tradition. In addition, the meanings of terms such as mutualism have changed over time, sometimes without spawning new schools. All of these terminological difficulties contribute to misunderstandings within and about anarchism. A central concern is whether the term anarchism is defined in opposition to hierarchy, authority and the state, or state and capitalism. Debates over the meaning of the term emerge from the fact that it refers to both an abstract philosophical position and to intellectual, political and institutional traditions, all of which have been fraught with conflict. Some minimal, abstract definitions encourage the inclusion of figures, movements and philosophical positions which have historically positioned themselves outside, or even in opposition to, individuals and traditions that have identified themselves as anarchist. While opposition to the state is central, there is a lot of talk among scholars and anarchists on the matter and various currents perceive anarchism slightly differently. Hence, it might be true to say that anarchism is a cluster of political philosophies opposing authority and hierarchical organization (including the state, capitalism, nationalism and all associated institutions) in the conduct of all human relations in favour of a society based on voluntary association, freedom and decentralisation. However, this definition has its own shortcomings as the definition based on etymology (which is simply a negation of a ruler), or based on anti-statism (anarchism is much more than that) or even the anti-authoritarian (which is an a posteriori concussion). Nonetheless, major elements of the definition of anarchism include the following:
- The will for a non-coercive society.
- The rejection of the state apparatus.
- The belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society.
- A suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.
Usages in political circles have varied considerably. In 1894, Richard T. Ely noted that the term had "already acquired a variety of meanings". In its most general sense, these included the view that society is "a living, growing organism, the laws of which are something different from the laws of individual action". Several years earlier in 1888, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker included the full text of a "Socialistic Letter" by Ernest Lesigne in his essay on "State Socialism and Anarchism". According to Lesigne, there are two socialisms: "One is dictatorial, the other libertarian". Anti-capitalism is considered a necessary element of anarchism by most anarchists.
Owing to the many anarchist schools of thought, anarchism can be divided into two or more categories, the most used being individualist anarchism vs. social anarchism. Other categorizations may include green anarchism and/or left and right anarchism. Terms like anarcho-socialism or socialist anarchism are rejected by most anarchists since they generally consider themselves socialists of the libertarian tradition and are seen as unnecessary and confusing when not used as synonymous with libertarian or stateless socialism vis-à-vis authoritarian or state socialism, but they are nevertheless used by anarcho-capitalist theorists and scholars who recognize anarcho-capitalism to differentiate between the two, or what is otherwise known as social anarchism. Since anarchism has been historically identified with the socialist and anti-capitalist movement, with the main divide being between anti-market anarchists who support some form of decentralised economic planning and pro-market anarchists who support free-market socialism, anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism and reject categorizations such as left and right anarchism (anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism), seeing anarchism as a libertarian socialist and radical left-wing or far-left ideology. Schools of thought like anarcha-feminism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-transhumanism and green anarchism, among others, can have different economic views and be either part of individualist anarchism or social anarchism.
To differentiate it from individualist anarchism, most anarchists generally prefer using social anarchism, a term used to characterize certain strides of anarchism vis-à-vis individualist anarchism, with the former focusing on the social aspect and generally being more organisational as well as supporting decentralised economic planning and the latter focusing on the individual and generally being more anti-organisational as well as supporting a free-market form of socialism, respectively, rather than seeing the two categories as mutually exclusive or as socialist vis-à-vis capitalism, leading to anarchism without adjectives. For instance, mutualism, especially the theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, is seen as the middle or third category between social anarchism and individualist anarchism, although it is often considered part of social anarchism and sometimes part of individualist anarchism. Indeed, Proudhon spoke of social individualism and described the mutualism and the freedom it pursued as the synthesis between communism and property. While most anarcho-capitalists theorists and scholars divide anarchism into social anarchism vis-à-vis individualist anarchism meaning socialism vs. capitalism, seeing the two as mutually exclusive although accepting all anarchist schools of thought under panarchy on the basis of voluntaryism, anarchist theorists and scholars opposing to anarcho-capitalism reject this, not seeing them as a struggle between socialism and capitalism or as mutually exclusive, but instead as complementary, with their differences mainly being based on the means to attain anarchy, rather than on their ends, arguing against certain anarcho-capitalist theorists and scholars who see individualist anarchism as pro-capitalist and reiterating that anarchism as a whole is socialist, meaning libertarian and anti-statist socialism. As an example, many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radically individualists, seeing anarcho-communism as the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Notwithstanding the name, collectivist anarchism is also seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism. Indeed, anarchism is generally considered an individualist philosophy, opposing all forms of authoritarian collectivism, but one which does see the individual or the community as complementary rather than mutually exclusive, with anarco-communism and social anarchism in particular most rejecting the individualist–collectivist dichotomy. Finally, social anarchism is a term used in the United States to refer to Murray Bookchin's circle and its omonymous journal.
From a materialist perspective, individualist anarchism is simply the anarchist form in the pre-capitalist and largely agrarian and merchantilist capitalism before the Industrial Revolution, during which individualist anarchism became a form of artisanal and self-employed socialism, especially in the United States. Instead, social anarchism is anarchism in an industrial society, being the form of industrial or proletarian socialism, with post-left anarchy and its criticism of industrial technology and anti-workerism arising in a post-industrial society. Thus, such anarchists may simply see these categorisation in these terms. Despite their differences, these are all different forms of libertarian socialism. Before socialism became associated in the 20th century with Marxist–Leninist states and similar forms of authoritarian and statist socialism, considered by critics as state capitalism and administrative command economies rather than planned economies, the word socialism was a broad concept which was aimed at solving the labour problem through radical changes in the capitalist economy. This caused issues between traditional anarchists and anarcho-captalists, whose understanding of socialism is that of the 20th century Marxist–Leninist states, with capitalism meaning the free market rather than actually existing capitalism. Anarchists like Luigi Galleani and Errico Malatesta have seen no contradiction between individualist anarchism and social anarchism, with the latter especially seeing the issues not between the two forms of anarchism, but between anarchists and non-anarchists.
Left and right anarchism
The term left anarchism is sometimes used synonymously with libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, or social anarchism. More traditional anarchists typically discourage the concept of left-wing theories of anarchism on grounds of redundancy and that it lends legitimacy to the notion that anarchism is compatible with capitalism or nationalism.
Although laissez-faire has been commonly associated with capitalism and anarcho-capitalists advocate such system, there is a similar left-wing or socialist laissez-faire system called free-market anarchism, also known as free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism to distinguish it from laissez-faire capitalism. One first example of this is mutualism as developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the 18th century, from which emerged individualist anarchism. Benjamin Tucker is one eminent American individualist anarchist who adopted a laissez-faire system he termed anarchistic socialism in contraposition to state socialism. This tradition has been recently associated with contemporary scholars such as Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Gary Chartier, who are critics of laissez-faire as commonly understood and instead argue that a truly laissez-faire system would be anti-capitalist and socialist. Indeed, Murray Rothbard himself, who coined the term anarcho-capitalism and advocated such philosophy, argued that the robber baron period—hailed by the right and despised by the left—as a heyday of laissez-faire, was not characterized by laissez-faire at all, but it was in fact a time of massive state privilege accorded to capital. The doyen of modern American market-oriented libertarianism and an Austrian School economist, Rothbard was initially an enthusiastic partisan of the Old Right, particularly because of its general opposition to war and imperialism. However, Rothbard had long embraced a reading of American history that emphasized the role of elite privilege in shaping legal and political institutions—one that was naturally agreeable to many on the left—and came increasingly in the 1960s to seek alliances on the left and especially with members of the New Left in light of the Vietnam War, the military draft and the emergence of the Black Power movement. Working with other radicals like Ronald Radosh and Karl Hess, Rothbard argued that the consensus view of American economic history, according to which a beneficent government has used its power to counter corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. Rather, he argued that government intervention in the economy has largely benefited established players at the expense of marginalized groups, to the detriment of both liberty and equality. In tandem with his emphasis on the intimate connection between state and corporate power, he defended the seizure of corporations dependent on state largesse by workers and others.
Rothbard himself ultimately broke with the left, allying himself instead with the burgeoning paleoconservative movement. This caused a divide between left- and right-Rothbardians, with most right-Rothbardians identifying as anarcho-capitalists, conservatives, paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, propertarians or right-libertarians whereas left-Rothbardians and some thinkers associated with market-oriented libertarianism, drawing on the work of Rothbard during his alliance with the left and on the thought of Karl Hess, came increasingly to identify with the left on a range of issues, including opposition to war, corporate oligopolies and state-corporate partnerships as well as an affinity for cultural liberalism against Rothbard's later cultural conservatism and right-wing populism. One variety of this kind of libertarianism has been a resurgent mutualism, incorporating modern economic ideas such as marginal utility theory into mutualist theory. Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy helped to stimulate the growth of new-style mutualism, articulating a version of the labor theory of value incorporating ideas drawn from Austrian economics. Many left-Rothbardians are mutualists whereas others left Rothbardians and market-oriented left-libertarians have declined to embrace mutualist views of real property while sharing the mutualist opposition to corporate hierarchies and wealth concentration. Such left-libertarians have placed particular emphasis on the articulation and defense of a libertarian theory of class and class conflict, although considerable work in this area has been performed by libertarians of other persuasions. In the end, those left-Rothbardians and libertarians maintain that because of its heritage and its emancipatory goals and potential radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists like anarcho-capitalists can and should call themselves socialists, echoing the language of libertarian socialists like American individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and British Thomas Hodgskin.
In response to claims from anarcho-capitalists that he uses the term capitalism incorrectly, Kevin Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect what he claims to be an old definition of the term in order to "make a point". He claims that "the term 'capitalism,' as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf". Carson holds that "capitalism, arising as a new class society directly from the old class society of the Middle Ages, was founded on an act of robbery as massive as the earlier feudal conquest of the land. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its survival is unimaginable". In addition to individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker's big four monopolies (land, money, tariffs and patents), Carson argues that the state has also transferred wealth to the wealthy by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies, arguing that in a truly laissez-faire system the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible. In response to criticisms from anarcho-capitalists who reject the labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value and support marginalism, the theoretical sections of Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy are presented as an attempt to integrate marginalist critiques into the labor theory of value.
Gary Chartier offers an understanding of property rights as contingent yet tightly constrained social strategies, reflective of the importance of multiple, overlapping rationales for separate ownership and of natural law principles of practical reasonableness, defending robust yet non-absolute protections for these rights in a manner similar to that employed by David Hume. This account is distinguished from anarcho-capitalists who are propertarian and hold Lockean and neo-Lockean views which deduce property rights from the idea of self-ownership and from consequentialist accounts that might license widespread ad hoc interference with the possessions of groups and individuals. Chartier uses this account to ground a clear statement of the natural law basis for the view that solidaristic wealth redistribution by individual persons is often morally required, but as a response by individuals and grass-roots networks to particular circumstances rather than as a state-driven attempt to achieve a particular distributive pattern. Thus, Chartier advances detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity which anarcho-capitalists reject, defending it instead as morally desirable and as a likely outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something to be mandated by the state. He also discusses natural law approaches to land reform and to the occupation of factories by workers which anarcho-capitalists may see as infranging on property owners' rights. Against some anarcho-capitalists who support intellectual property, Chartier ultimately objects on natural law grounds to intellectual property protections, drawing on his theory of property rights more generally and developing a general natural law account of boycotts.
Left-wing market anarchism
Left-wing market anarchism is a form of individualist anarchism, libertarian socialism and free-market anarchism as distinct from anarcho-capitalism, whose genealogy overlaps to a significant degree with that of Steiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the book The Origins of Left-Libertarianism. Carson–Long-style left-libertarianism is rooted in 19th-century mutualism and in the work of figures such as American individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and Thomas Hodgskin, a British critic of capitalism and defender of free trade and early trade unions. Relationships between such market anarchists and the New Left thrived in the 1960s, laying the groundwork for modern left-wing market anarchism.
Left-wing market anarchism identifies with left-libertarianism whereas anarcho-capitalism is considered a form of right-libertarianism. Unlike anarcho-capitalists, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights and those who support private property do so under occupation and use property norms as in mutualism or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or even global community as advocated by geoists and geolibertarians. Arguing that vast disparities in wealth and social influence result from the use of force and especially state power to steal and engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges, members of this thought typically urge the abolition of the state. They judge that in a stateless society, the kinds of privileges secured by the state will be absent and injustices perpetrated or tolerated by the state can be rectified. According to libertarian scholar Sheldon Richman:
Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the "best alternative" in the absence of government manipulation. Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics, having little confidence in strategies that work through the government. They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the state.
Unlike anarcho-captalists, there is also a tendency to support the labor movement and their struggles. For instance, Kevin Carson has praised individualist anarchist Dyer Lum's fusion of individualist economics with radical labor activism as "creative" and described him as "more significant than any in the Boston group". Furthermore, Roderick T. Long is an advocate of "build[ing] worker solidarity. On the one hand, this means formal organisation, including unionization – but I'm not talking about the prevailing model of "business unions," [...] but real unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage". In particular, Long has described the situation as such:
|“||[T]he present status of unions as governmentally privileged labor cartels is in large part the result of legislation supported by big business, inasmuch as the corporate elite found unions less threatening as regulated junior partners in the corporate régime, playing on its terms, than as independent actors. After all, the achievements, much heralded by the Left, which unions won in their heyday, such as the weekend and the eight-hour day, were won primarily by market means, often over strong government resistance; likewise, the most notable victories of unions in recent years have been won mainly by unofficial, disapproved unions, without violence of either the governmental or freelance variety, and outside of the traditional labor-law establishment. By contrast, the influence of mainstream unions has been steadily declining ever since they accepted the devil's bargain of "help" from big-daddy government, with all the regulatory strings that go with it. Thus when left-wingers complain that unions are in decline and that workers are disempowered on the job, they're complaining about a situation created and sustained by government — and once again, we should be pointing that out to them.||”|
Contemporary left-wing market anarchists show markedly more sympathy than anarcho-capitalists towards various cultural movements which challenge non-governmental relations of power. For instance, Roderick T. Long and Charles W. Johnson have called for a recovery of the 19th-century alliance with radical liberalism and feminism. While adopting similar views, including opposition to drug prohibition, gun control, civil liberties violations and war, left-wing market anarchists are more likely than most self-identified anarcho-capitalists to take more distinctively leftist stances on issues as diverse as feminism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration and environmentalism. Especially influential regarding these topics have been scholars including Long, Johnson, Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Arthur Silber. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, left-wing market anarchism also does not have any strict agreement what constitutes legitimate property titles. Arguments have been made for Rothbardian, Georgist, mutualist and utilitarian approaches to determining legitimate property claims. Such discrepancies are resolved through deliberation mechanisms like the polycentric law. Instead, such anarchists recognize the importance of property held and managed in common as a way of maintaining common goods.
Such market anarchists recognize that anarchism has been historically identified with the socialist and anti-capitalist movement, with the main divide being between anti-market anarchists (most social anarchists, including anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists and collectivist anarchists) who support some form of decentralised economic planning and pro-market anarchists (certain individualist anarchists, including free-market anarchists and mutualists) who support free-market socialism, arguing that anarcho-capitalists should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global anti-capitalist movement since by capitalism they generally mean the free market rather than actually existing capitalism, of which they are critics, arguing that the problem rests on corporatism and state capitalism, a term used by anarchists to criticize state socialism as nothing more than state capitalism, rather than capitalism itself. Much like socialism has been conflated with state socialism in the 20th century due to Marxist–Leninist states, capitalism has been similarly conflated with the free market when the term itself in its modern form was coined in the 18th century to mean a construed political system built on privileges for the owners of capital. Like other anarchists, left-wing market anarchists argue that capitalism necessarily rest on the state to survive (capitalism itself was always seen as what would be later termed state capitalism) while also making the point that the free market for classical economists such as Adam Smith did not necessarily refer to a market free from government interference as it is now commonly assumed or as anarcho-capitalists argue, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities, implying that economic rents, i.e. profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition; and that a true free-market or laissez-faire system would be better served under socialism rather than capitalism. Terms like anarcho-socialism or socialist anarchism are rejected by most anarchists since they generally consider themselves socialists of the libertarian tradition, but they are used by anarcho-capitalist theorists and scholars who recognize anarcho-capitalism to differentiate between the two.
Many anarchists are actively involved in the anti-globalization movement, seeing corporate globalization as a neocolonialist attempt to use economic coercion on a global scale, carried out through state institutions such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, Group of Eight and the World Economic Forum. Globalization is an ambiguous term that has different meanings to different anarchist factions. Many anarchists use the term to mean neocolonialism and/or cultural imperialism (which they may see as related). Anarcho-capitalists instead use globalization to mean the worldwide expansion of the division of labor and trade which they see as beneficial so long as governments do not intervene. Like market anarchists, anarcho-capitalists also see the worldwide expansion of the division of labor through trade (globalization) as a boon, but they oppose the regulation and cartelization imposed by the World Bank, World Trade Organization and managed trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Many also object to fiat money issued by central banks and resulting debasement of money and confiscation of wealth. Groups such as Reclaim the Streets were among the instigators of the so-called anti-globalization movement. The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999 is generally regarded as the first of the major anti-globalization protests. Anarchists such as the WOMBLES have on occasion played a significant role in planning, organising and participating in subsequent protests. The protests tended to be organised on anarchist direct action principles with a general tolerance for a range of different activities ranging from those who engage in tactical frivolity to the black blocs.
- Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
- Fair trade
- Free trade
- Issues in anarchism
- Labor theory of value
- Wage slave
- "Principles of The International of Anarchist Federations". Archived 5 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine International of Anarchist Federations. "The IAF - IFA fights for : the abolition of all forms of authority whether economical, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual".
- Kropotkin, Peter. "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal". "That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist".
- "B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?". An Anarchist FAQ. "Anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy — hierarchy being the institutionalisation of authority within a society".
- Woodcock, George. "Anarchism". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "ANARCHISM, a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man's natural social tendencies".
- Kropotkin, Peter. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. "In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions".
- Malatesta, Errico. "Towards Anarchism". MAN!. Los Angeles: International Group of San Francisco. OCLC 3930443. Agrell, Siri (14 May 2007). "Working for The Man". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 16 May 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2008. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 2006. Archived from the original on 14 December 2006. Retrieved 29 August 2006. "Anarchism". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 14. 2005.
Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable. The following sources cite anarchism as a political philosophy: Mclaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 59. ISBN 0-7546-6196-2. Johnston, R. (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 0-631-20561-6.
- Slevin, Carl (2003). McLean, Aiaun; McMillan, Allistair, eds. "Anarchism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press.
- Goldman, Emma. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy". Anarchism and Other Essays. "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations".
- Tucker, Benjamin. Individual Liberty. "They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, — follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism. [...] Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of the socialism off Karl Marx".
- Ward, Colin (1966). "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization". Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
- Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it". (p. 9) "[...] Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State".
- Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.
- Heilbroner, Robert L. Capitalism. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008).
- Tormey, Simon. Anticapitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10.
- Critical Issues in History. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999, p. 1.
- Scott, John (2005). Industrialism: A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press.
- Bernstein, Andrew (2005). The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-faire. University of America. ISBN 0-7618-3221-1.
- Bottomore, Tom (1991). "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference. p. 21. ISBN 0-63118082-6.
- See the following sources:
- Bullosk, Alan; Trombley, Stephen (ed.) (1999). The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 30.
- Barry, Norman (2000). Modern Political Theory. Palgrave, p. 70.
- Adams, Ian (2002). Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135.
- Grant, Moyra (2003). Key Ideas in Politics. Nelson Thomas. p. 91. ISBN 0-7487-7096-8.
- Heider, Ulrike (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green. City Lights. p. 3.
- Avrich, Paul (1996). Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. Abridged paperback edition. p. 282.
- Tormey, Simon (2004). Anti-Capitalism, One World. pp. 118–119.
- Raico, Ralph (2004). Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century. École Polytechnique, Centre de Recherche en Épistémologie Appliquée, Unité associée au CNRS.
- Busky, Donald (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger/Greenwood. p. 4.
- Heywood, Andrew (2002). Politics: Second Edition. Palgrave. p. 61.
- Offer, John (2000). Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments. Routledge. p. 243.
- Rothbard, Murray. "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?". LewRockwell.com.
- McKay, Iain (2007). "Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
- McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 5 December 2011. Retrieved 3 December 2011.
- Marshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Oakland, California: PM Press. p. 565. ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1.: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."; Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (41). "Within 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 venders. [...] [S]o what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."; Meltzer, Albert (1 January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against. AK Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-873176-57-3. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."; Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-84631-025-6.: "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."; Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7486-3495-8.: "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".
- See the following sources:
- K, David (2005). What is Anarchism?. Bastard Press.
- Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible. Chapther 38. London: Fontana Press. ISBN 0-00-686245-4.
- MacSaorsa, Iain (2009). Is 'Anarcho' Capitalism Against the State?. Spunk Press.
- Wells, Sam (January 1979). Anarcho-Capitalism is Not Anarchism, and Political Competition is Not Economic Competition. Frontlines 1.
- See the following sources:
- Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Chapter "Government". Dutton Adult.
- Doyle, Kevin (2002). Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 447–448.
- Sheehan, Seán M. (2003). Anarchism Reaktion Books. p. 17.
- Kelsen, Hans (1988). The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 110.
- Tellegen, Egbert; Wolsink, Maarten (1998). Society and Its Environment: an introduction. Routledge. p. 64.
- Jones, James (2004). The Merry Month of May. Akashic Books. pp. 37–38.
- Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart (2004). Political Theorists in Context. Routledge. p. 238.
- Bookchin, Murray (2004). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press. p. 37.
- Berkman, Alexander (2005). Life of an Anarchist. Seven Stories Press. p. 268.
- Microsoft Word - HER31Knowles.doc. Archived 15 June 2005 at the Wayback Machine
- Kropotkin, Peter. Revolutionary Pamphlets. p. 179.
- "Citizens' Money", a 1890 lecture on the national banking system delivered in Chicago and published in Liberty of Boston in 1888. San Francisco: Equity Publishing.
- "Citizens' Money, a critical analysis in the light of free trade in banking delivered by Alfred B. Westrup in Chicago, Sunday, 3 June 1888 and in Toledo, Ohio under the auspices of the Society for Economic Inquiry on 19 February 1891. Chicago: Mutual Bank Propaganda. Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty. p. 47.
- Reekie, W. Duncan (1984). Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty. pp. 136–137.
- Rothbard, Murray. Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays. p. 4.
- Rothbard, Murray. Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays. p. 5.
- Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. What is Property?. p. 118.
- Berkman, Alexander. The ABC of Anarchism. p. 25.
- Chomsky, Noam. The Chomsky Reader. p. 190.
- Maximov, G. P., ed. (1953). The Political Philosophy of Bakunin. New York: The Free Press. p. 269.
- Bakunin, Mikhail (1871). "About Freedom".
- Newman, Stephen L. Liberalism at Wit's End. pp. 74–76.
- Tucker, Benjamin. Instead of a Book. p. 131.
- Martin, James J. Men Against the State. p. 223.
- Hymans, E., Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, pp. 190-–191.
- Vincent, Steven K. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984, p. 156, p. 230.
- Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1840). What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.
- Friedland, William H.; Rosberg, Carl G. (1965). African Socialism. Stanford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0804702034.
- "B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?". An Anarchist FAQ. Archived from the original on 14 November 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018.
- "End Private Property, Not Kenny Loggins". Jacobin. Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018.
- Cheyney, Ryan C. (November 1980). "Social Justice and the Right to the Labor Product". Political Theory (8: 4). p. 506.
- "Individual Liberty: Labor and Its Pay". Archived from the original on 7 April 2005. Retrieved 11 August 2005.
- "Preamble to the IWW Constitution". Industrial Workers of the World. Retrieved 23 June 2017.
- Caplan, Bryan (2008). "Anarchism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 10–13. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n7. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice, p 51
- Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004.
- Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979.
- Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
- Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
- Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
- Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.
- Ostergaard, Geofrey. Resisting the Nation State: The Pacifist and Anarchist Tradition. Peace Pledge Union Publications.
- Stringham, Edward (2005). Anarchy, State, and Public Choice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
- Morris, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13–14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- Edward Stringham. Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice. p. 51.
- "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy" (2011). Libertarian Papers. (3:) 3.
- Yilmaz, Yesim (20 April 1998). Policy Analysis No. 303. "Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform". Cato Institute. p. 10.
- Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (31 December 2001). "Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography".
- Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (1987). p. 290. ISBN 978-0-631-17944-3. "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker".
- Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty. "12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts".
- "The Rise, Fall, and Renaissance of Classical Liberalism". "Socialists attacked it for upholding the "anarchical" free-market system instead of "scientific" central planning".
- "Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?. "It is the tragic irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism or chaos".
- Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (41). "Within 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 venders. [...] [S]o what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud".
- Meltzer, Albert (2000). Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press. p. 50. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper".
- Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
- Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists".
- "Section F – Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?" (2008). An Anarchist FAQ. Oakland, California Edinburg, Scotland: AK Press. 558 pp. ISBN 978-1902593906.
- Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0748634959. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)".
- Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press. p. 6.
- Anarchism, p. 158.
- Morris, Brian, Anthropology and Anarchism, "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed" (no. 45); Mckay, Iain, The legacy of Voltairine De Cleyre, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 44; Brown, L. Susan, The Politics of Individualism.
- Brown, Susan Love; Garrier, James G. ed. (1997). The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Oxford: Berg. p. 104, p. 107.
- Martin, James J. Men against the State. p. 208.
- Madison, Charles A. (1945). "Anarchism in the United States". Journal of the History of Ideas. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 6, No. 1. 6 (1): 46–66. doi:10.2307/2707055. JSTOR 2707055.
- Madison, Charles A. (1943). "Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and Anarchist". New England Quarterly. 16 (3): 444–467. doi:10.2307/361029. JSTOR 361029.
- Anti-capitalist market anarchists support private possession along Warren's, Proudhon's, or similar lines. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists support private property along Lockean or similar lines.
- As Peter Marshall notes in his history of anarchism (Demanding the Impossible), "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice". p. 565.
- Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, "Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, Libertarian as Conservative
- 1) Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7. 2) Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231.
- Chartier, Gary (2009). Economic Justice and Natural Law. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
- Carson, Kevin A. (2008). Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective. Charleston, SC:BookSurge.
- Carson, Kevin A. (2010). The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
- Long, Roderick T. (2000). Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. Washington, DC:Objectivist Center
- Long, Roderick T. (2008). "An Interview With Roderick Long"
- Johnson, Charles W. (2008). "Liberty, Equality, Solidarity: Toward a Dialectical Anarchism." Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country? In Long, Roderick T. and Machan, Tibor Aldershot: Ashgate pp. 155–88.
- Spangler, Brad (15 September 2006). "Market Anarchism as Stigmergic Socialism Archived 10 May 2011 at Archive.today.
- Richman, Sheldon (23 June 2010). "Why Left-Libertarian?" The Freeman. Foundation for Economic Education.
- Richman, Sheldon (18 December 2009). "Workers of the World Unite for a Free Market" Archived 22 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine." Foundation for Economic Education.
- Sheldon Richman (3 February 2011). "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal." The American Conservative. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
- Sciabarra, Chris Matthew (2000). Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State University Press.
- See Gary Chartier, "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Oppose Capitalism," "Free-Market Anti-Capitalism?" session, annual conference, Association of Private Enterprise Education (Cæsar's Palace, Las Vegas, NV, April 13, 2010); Gary Chartier, "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace 'Anti-Capitalism'"; Gary Chartier, Socialist Ends, Market Means: Five Essays. Cp. Tucker, "Socialism."
- Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY:Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 1–16.
- Gillis, William (2011). "The Freed Market." In Chartier, Gary and Johnson, Charles. Markets Not Capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 19–20.
- Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson (eds). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions; 1st edition (November 5, 2011
- See Gary Chartier, "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Oppose Capitalism," "Free-Market Anti-Capitalism?" session, annual conference, Association of Private Enterprise Education (Cæsar's Palace, Las Vegas, NV, April 13, 2010); Gary Chartier, "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace 'Anti-Capitalism'"; Gary Chartier, Socialist Ends, Market Means: Five Essays. Cp. Tucker, "Socialism".
- McElroy, Wendy (1995). "Intellectual Property: The Late Nineteenth Century Libertarian Debate". Libertarian Heritage (14). ISBN 1-85637-281-2. Retrieved 24 June 2005.
- Birch, Paul (1998). "Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City States" (PDF). Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes. no. 28: 4. ISSN 0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2010.
- "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace "Anti-Capitalism".
- Meltzer, Albert (2000). Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1873176573.
- "On Anarchism: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tom Lane". Chomsky.info. 23 December 2006. Retrieved 9 January 2016.
- "I am David Graeber, an anthropologist, activist, anarchist and author of Debt. AMA". Reddit. Retrieved 21 August 2013.
- Long 2013, p. 217.
- McLaughlin 2007, pp 25–26; Long 2013, p. 217.
- McLaughlin 2007, pp 25–26.
- Richard Theodore Ely, Socialism: An Examination of Its Nature, Its Strength and Its Weakness (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1894), p. 3.
- Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ.
- Anarchist survey highlighting a general opposition to capitalism: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 14 March 2012. Retrieved 8 November 2010.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- Chomsky, Noam (1991). "On Capitalism". Chomsky.info. Archived from the original on 28 September 2013. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
catastrophe of capitalism
- Anarchist FAQ collective. "Is "anarcho-capitalism" a form of capitalism?". Retrieved 26 November 2013.
- Iverson, Stan. (1968). "Sex and Anarcho-socialism". Sex Marchers. p. 57. "Libertarian Socialism, or if you please, anarcho-socialism [...]".
- Walford, George (1979). Ideologies and Their Functions: A Study in Systematic Ideology. pp. 139–145.
- McNally, David (1993). "'Proudhon did Enormous Mischief': Marx's Critique of the First Market Socialists". Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and the Marxist Critique. Verso.
- Sturgis, Amy H. (2003). Presidents from Hayes Through McKinley: Debating the Issues in Pro and Con Primary Documents. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 106. "Composed of many differing strains of thought (such as mutualism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-socialism, and anarcho-communism), anarchism revolves around the concept of noncoercion and the belief that force is illegitimate and unethical".
- Busky, Donald F. (1 January 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2. ISBN 9780275968861.
The same may be said of anarchism: social anarchism—a nonstate form of socialism—may be distinguished from the nonsocialist, and, in some cases, procapitalist school of individualist anarchism.
- Ostergaard, Geoffrey (2008). "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.
- Bylund, Per (19 March 2019). "The Trouble With Socialist Anarchism". Mises Institute. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
- Baldelli, Giovanni (1971). Social Anarchism. Aldine Atherton. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
- McKay, Iain (18 June 2009). "An Anarchist FAQ". Stirling: AK Press.
- Owens, Connor (25 February 2016). "Why "Social" Anarchism?". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
- Thagard, Paul. 2002. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press. p. 153.
- Heider, Ulrike (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right and Green. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
- Brooks 1994, p. xi; Kahn 2000; Moynihan 2007.
- Esenwein, George Richard (1989). Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898. p. 135. "Anarchism without adjectives referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, [...] [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools".
- Bowen, James; Purkis, Jon (2004). Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester University Press. p. 24.
- Knowles, Rob (Winter 2000). "Political Economy From Below: Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected Discourse in Histories of Economic Thought". History of Economics Review (31).
- Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1918). "Anarchism". The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge. 1. New York. p. 624. LCCN 18016023. OCLC 7308909 – via Hathi Trust.
- Hamilton, Peter (1995). Émile Durkheim. New York: Routledge. p. 79. ISBN 978-0415110471.
- Faguet, Émile (1970). Politicians & Moralists of the Nineteenth Century. Freeport: Books for Libraries Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-8369-1828-1.
- Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1848). What Is Property?.
- Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own". Mother Earth (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; Novatore, Renzo (1924). "Towards the Creative Nothing"; Gray, Christopher (1974). Leaving the Twentieth Century. p. 88; Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason". "[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity".
- Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy". "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; Truda, Dielo (1926). "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists". "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; "My Perspectives". Willful Disobedience (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; Brown, L. Susan (2002). The Politics of Individualism. Black Rose Books; Brown, L. Susan (2 February 2011). "Does Work Really Work?".
- Morriss, Brian (1993). Bakukunin: The Philosophy of Freedom. Black Rose Books Ltd. p. 115.
- Bookchin, Murray (1995). "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
- Ehrlich, Howard J. (2013). "The Best of Social Anarchism". See Sharp Press. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
- "G.1.4 Why is the social context important in evaluating Individualist Anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Archived 15 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. 75.
- Galleani, Luigi (1925). "The End of Anarchism?". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
- Malatesta, Errico (1924). "Note to the article "Individualism and Anarchism" by Adamas". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
- Paul, Ellen Frankel. Miller, Fred Dycus. Paul, Jeffrey. 1993. (no title listed) Cambridge University Press. p. 115.
- Chomsky, Noam (2003). Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 398.
Chomsky, Noam. Language and Politics. AK Press. p. 153.
- Peacock, Adrian. 1999. Two Hundred Pharaohs, Five Billion Slaves. Ellipsis London.
- Goodwin, Barbara (2007). Using Political Ideas. John Wiley & Sons.
- Brooks, Thom (2002). Book Reviews. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 19 (1). 75–90. doi:10.1111/1468-5930.00206.
- McKay, Iain (2007). "Section F.7.3 - Can there be a 'right-wing' anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
- McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section F.7.3 - Can there be a 'right-wing' anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 17 November 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- McKay, Iain (2007). "Section D.6 - Are anarchists against Nationalism?". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
- McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section D.6 - Are anarchists against Nationalism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
- Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green. San Francisco: City Lights Books. 1994.
- Nick Manley (7 May 2014). "Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part One". Center for a Stateless Society. Retrieved 23 April 2019.
- Nick Maley (9 May 2014). "Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part Two". Center for a Stateless Society Retrieved 29 April 2019.
- Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY:Minor Compositions/Autonomedia
- "It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism." Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. p. back cover.
- "But there has always been a market-oriented strand of libertarian socialism that emphasizes voluntary cooperation between producers. And markets, properly understood, have always been about cooperation. As a commenter at Reason magazine's Hit&Run blog, remarking on Jesse Walker's link to the Kelly article, put it: "every trade is a cooperative act." In fact, it's a fairly common observation among market anarchists that genuinely free markets have the most legitimate claim to the label “socialism.”" "Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated" by Kevin Carson at website of Center for a Stateless Society.
- Tucker, Benjamin. "State Socialism and Anarchism".
- Brown, Susan Love. 1997. "The Free Market as Salvation from Government". In Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Berg Publishers. p. 107.
- Nick Manley, "Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part One".
- Nick Manley, "Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part Two".
- See Justin Raimondo, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Amherst, NY: Prometheus 2001).
- Cp. Raimondo 151–209.
- See Brian M. Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (New York: Public Affairs 2007) 338.
- See Murray N. Rothbard and Ronald Radosh, eds., A New History of Leviathan: Essays on the Rise of the American Corporate State (New York: Dutton 1972).
- Cp. Karl Hess, Dear America (New York: Morrow 1975).
- On partnerships between the state and big business and the role of big business in promoting regulation, see Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (New York: Free 1977); Butler Shaffer, In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign against Competition, 1918–1938 (Auburn, AL: Mises 2008).
- Rothbard, Murray N. (15 June 1969). "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle." Libertarian Forum. 1:6. pp. 3–4.
- See Raimondo 277-8; Doherty 562-5.
- Carson, Kevin. "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy". Archived 23 January 2005[Date mismatch] at the Wayback Machine Chs. 1–3.
- See Kevin A. Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy (Charleston, SC: BookSurge 2007). This book was the focus of a symposium in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.
- Roderick T. Long, "Land Locked: A Critique of Carson on Property Rights," Journal of Libertarian Studies 20.1 (Winter 2006): 87–95.
- Sheldon Richman, "Class Struggle Rightly Conceived," The Goal Is Freedom (Foundation for Economic Education, July 13, 2007); Nock, Our Enemy, the State; Franz Oppenheimer, The State (San Francisco: Fox 1997); Tom G. Palmer, "Classical Liberalism, Marxism, and the Conflict of Classes: The Classical Liberal Theory of Class Conflict," Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice (Washington: Cato 2009) 255-76; Wally Conger, Agorist Class Theory: A Left Libertarian Approach to Class Conflict Analysis Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine (Agorism.info, n.d.); Kevin A. Carson, "Another Free-for-All: Libertarian Class Analysis, Organized Labor, Etc.," Mutualist Blog: Free-Market Anti-Capitalism (n.p., Jan. 26, 2006); Walter E. Grinder and John Hagel, "Toward a Theory of State Capitalism: Ultimate Decision Making and Class Structure," Journal of Libertarian Studies 1.1 (1977): 59–79; David M. Hart, "The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer" (PhD diss., U of Cambridge, 1994); Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis," Journal of Libertarian Studies 9.2 (1990): 79–93; Roderick T. Long, "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15.2 (Sum. 1998): 303–49.
- Carson, Kevin A. Carson's Rejoinders. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 20, No. 1 (Winter 2006): 97–136, pp. 116, 117.
- Richman, Sheldon, Libertarian Left, The American Conservative (March 2011).
- Dean, Brian (Winter 2002). "Bluffer's Guide to Revolutionary Economics". The Idler. Retrieved 24 May 2009.
- Gary Chartier, Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society (New York: Cambridge UP 2013) pp. 44–156.
- See Gary Chartier, "Natural Law and Non-Aggression," Acta Juridica Hungarica 51.2 (June 2010): pp. 79–96. For an earlier version see Justice, pp. 32–46.
- Justice, pp. 47–68.
- Justice 89–120.
- Gary Chartier, "Pirate Constitutions and Workplace Democracy," Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 18 (2010): pp. 449–467.
- Justice, pp. 123–154.
- Gary Chartier,' "Intellectual Property and Natural Law," Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36 (2011): pp. 58–88.
- Justice, pp. 176–182.
- Steiner, Hillel Vallentyne, Peter (2000). The Origins of Left Libertarianism. Palgrave.
- Long, Roderick T. (2006). "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later." Rothbard Memorial Lecture, Austrian Scholars Conference.
- Carson, Kevin. "May Day Thoughts: Individualist Anarchism and the Labor Movement". Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism.
- Richman, Sheldon (3 February 2011). "Libertarian Left". The American Conservative. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
- Roderick T. Long. "How to Reach the Left".
- Long, Roderick T.; Johnson, Charles W. (1 May 2005). "Libertarian Feminism: Can this Marriage Be Saved?" Molinari Society.
- Jason Lee Byas. "The Moral Irrelevance of Rent".
- William Schnack. "Panarchy Flourishes Under Geo-Mutualism".
- Kevin Carson. "Are We All Mutualists?".
- Willam Gillis. "The Organic Emergence of Property from Reputation".
- Roderick T. Long. "A Plea for Public Property".
- Makdisi, Saree; Casarino, Cesare; Karl, Rebecca E. (1996). Marxism Beyond Marxism. Routledge. p. 198.
- Sayers, Sean (1998). Marxism and Human Nature. Routledge. p. 105.
- Bottomore, Thomas B. (1964). Elites and Society p. 54.
- Gouldner, A. W. (November 1982). "Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and the First International". Theory and Society. (11: 6). pp. 853–884. Gouldner argues that Bakunin formulated an original critique of Marxism as "the ideology, not of the working class, but of a new class of scientific intelligentsia—who would corrupt socialism, make themselves a new elite, and impose their rule on the majority" (pp. 860–861).
- Shatz, Marshall S. "Jan Waclaw Machajski: A Radical Critic Of The Russian Intelligentsia And Socialism". Archived from the original on 26 October 2009. Retrieved 26 October 2009.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
- Fox, Michael S. "Ante Ciliga, Trotskii and State Capitalism: Theory, Tactics and Reevaluation during the Purge Era, 1935-1939" (PDF). Archived from the original on 27 October 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2009.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
- "Why is state socialism just state capitalism?". Archived 19 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- "L'Angleterre a-t-elle l'heureux privilège de n'avoir ni Agioteurs, ni Banquiers, ni Faiseurs de services, ni Capitalistes ?". In Clavier, Étienne (1788). De la foi publique envers les créanciers de l'état : lettres à M. Linguet sur le n° CXVI de ses annales (in French). p. 19.
- Braudel, Fernand (1979). The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization and Capitalism 15th–18th Century. Harper and Row.
- Hodgson, Geoffrey (2015). Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future. University of Chicago Press. p. 252.
- Popper, Karl (1994). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge Classics. ISBN 978-0-415-61021-6.
- "Reclaim the Streets" Donnacha DeLong, RTÉ News Online 2002. Retrieved 5 September 2006.
- "The New Anarchists", Graeber, David, New Left Review 13, January–February 2002. Retrieved 6 September 2006.
- "G8 Summit - J18: Global Carnival Against Corporate Tyranny, London, England", C. L. Staten, EmergencyNet News journalist, writing for RTÉ's website in 2002. Retrieved 5 September 2006
- WOMBLES wandering free Archived 2016-08-17 at the Wayback Machine Josie Appleton, spiked-politics, 2002. Retrieved 5 September 2006.
- "Anarchism as a Scapegoat of the 21st century: violence, anarchism and anti-globalisation protests" (2001). Archived 21 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine. Thrall (21). Retrieved 5 September 2006.
- An Anarchist FAQ contains arguments against both capitalism and anarcho-capitalism