The Global Liberty Community
Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-Communism: One Is a Contradiction
Anarchists often put themselves into one of two categories: “anarcho-capitalist” or “anarcho-communist.” Without going into a long discussion on capitalism vs. communism, I would like to explain why anarchism is compatible with only one of these concepts.
Let’s start with the most basic definitions. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production (capital), communism requires public ownership thereof, while anarchism (“anarcho”) means that no central authority holds a monopoly on enforcing the law, nor requires people to follow legislation under threat of force.
Violence may exist in an anarchic society because some people will always have sociopathic behaviors, but in general people do not resort to violence because of its costs, risks and repercussions, if not for the immorality of it. They prefer peaceful interactions. They do not want to commit acts of violence and aggression, but mainly people don’t want others to commit violence against them. They would seek mechanisms, tools and solutions to protect themselves and to prevent others from committing acts of violence.
Providers of such protection services would emerge on the unhampered market and seek profit from providing them. They would pool their resources and their customers, and find ways how to lower their costs to attract more customers and make their services affordable for virtually everyone. For those who would like to object that this is unfair because literally everyone already has such protection for free (i.e. paid by taxes) — no we don’t. We pay for real protection by paying a premium on our housing because cops don’t go to shitty neighborhoods. Goodwill and competition on a free market would provide affordable, reliable and just protection.
Protection doesn’t only include one’s body, however. People want their property to be protected as well, and this includes entrepreneurs and their capital — their land, machinery, material, etc. In a free market, there would be no difference in services provided to individuals and to companies. A free market would provide protection of the means of production, and there is no freer market than an anarchist society. The only way to prevent businesses from protecting their capital is for a central authority to monopolize violence, and “protect” people and property selectively against their expressed wishes.
So-called anarcho-communists sometimes also require the abolition of money. This notion ignores the emergent nature of money. People have sought universally accepted media of exchange (money) for millennia because it lowers transaction costs. Butcher no longer need to exchange meat for bread with baker, but can accept something he knows he can exchange with a knife maker. Money is a naturally emergent phenomenon, and thus again, the only way to abolish it is to call for violent central authority to enforce its ban.
It is a cognitive dissonance to call for a society without central authority and at the same time without protection of private property including means of production and without money. Anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms.
image source: NinjaMonkeyMedia @ Deviant Art: http://ninjamonkeymedia.deviantart.com/art/Anarcho-Communism-212490473
Join The Discussion
15 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Jorge Trucco June 5, 2015 , 10:13 pm Vote6
Anarcho-communism is impossible to be conceived even in theory.
Simply because you can’t have communism without a state, and you can have anarchy with a state.
Marchella June 6, 2015 , 1:39 am Vote2
Well put! @coquitru
Jorge Trucco June 6, 2015 , 4:38 am Vote3
Thanks, Marchella!
There is a typo error in my comment, I wrote “can” instead of “can’t”…
I’ll write it again:
Anarcho-communism is impossible to be conceived even in theory.
Simply because you can’t have communism without a state, and you CAN’T have anarchy with a state.
Marchella June 6, 2015 , 5:12 am Vote0
I knew what you were saying. 😉 @coquitru
Jorge Trucco June 6, 2015 , 5:17 am
@marchella I assumed you did, Marchella, thank you! Just wanted to clarify in case others didn’t. Best !! 🙂
Martin Brock June 6, 2015 , 5:35 am Vote1
An intentional community (or “commune”) is not a state. Its members may own land and other resources collectively without any more central authority commanding them, and intentional communities frequently do. How much of Fort Galt is owned individually, and how much is owned collectively by its members?
“Communism” certainly was associated with totalitarian states in the 20th century, but “capitalism” was only slightly less so (and even less so now). The word was never associated with “anarchy” outside of a tiny ideological faction (now growing), and it still isn’t, while in the 19th century “communism” (as understood by Kropotkin, not Marx) was associated more with opposition to the state far more than “capitalism”.
In common parlance, outside of narrowly libertarian usage, the word “capitalism” describes the corporative state exemplified by the United States, resembling Mussolini’s Fascism far more than Rothbard’s anarcho-caplitalism. When libertarians exalt “capitalism”, we only suggest to people that we advocate what they commonly associate with the word, which is more nearly the opposite of what we advocate. This confusion is not their fault. It’s ours.
I became a libertarian from “the left”, inspired initially by Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, Goldman and others, but I don’t call myself a “communist” or a “socialist” (though these people did), because words mean only what people commonly mean by them, and common usage of these words today does not describe my thinking.
I’m not a capitalist of any sort either for the same reason. In common parlance, both “anarcho-capitalism” and “anarcho-communism” are contradictions, and “anarcho-capitalism” still seems more contradictory to me.
Jeff Peterson II June 6, 2015 , 11:46 am Vote2
“In common parlance, outside of narrowly libertarian usage, the word “capitalism” describes the corporative state exemplified by the United States, resembling Mussolini’s Fascism far more than Rothbard’s anarcho-caplitalism.”
Plenty of terms get away with being inadequately defined in dictionaries or the minds of casual users that have to be much more carefully defined when you’re doing something specialized like economics. In common use, the word means something pretty vague, arguably resembling what you described. But like a lot of terms that exist in common use, whatever is said about its definition turns out to be pretty useless when using it in a specialized context for analytical purposes.
“When libertarians exalt “capitalism”, we only suggest to people that we advocate what they commonly associate with the word, which is more nearly the opposite of what we advocate. ”
I know exactly one definition that makes it amenable to analysis: the economic definition.
“This confusion is not their fault. It’s ours.”
Nope, it’s theirs.
“I’m not a capitalist of any sort either for the same reason […] anarcho-capitalism” still seems more contradictory to me.”
An anarchist that is for the private ownership of means of production is contradictory.
K.
Martin Brock June 6, 2015 , 8:14 pm Vote0
Most economists don’t use “capitalism” as Rothbaridans do, so I’m not sure which economic definition you mean. Economists carefully define terms like “capital” rather than “capitalism”. Capital exists regardless of particular standards of propriety governing it.
When you exalt “economics”, you exalt the thinking of Paul Krugman far more than Murray Rothbard, in both common vernacular and specialized, academic vernacular.
Blaming someone for misunderstanding your idiosyncratic use of a common word doesn’t change anything. The misunderstanding exists regardless of who you blame for it, and the choice of idiosyncratic usage is yours.
I think you intend something else here, so I’ll wait for you to clarify the statement. You aren’t summarizing me.
If “anarchy”describes the absence of a state, an “anarchist” insisting that “private ownership” requires Rothbardian standards of propriety at the point of a gun (or guns) everywhere within a territory is a contradiction in terms, even if the nominal “anarchist” insists that these standards are “natural” or “logically necessary”.
The distinction between “communal”and “individual” ownership is not the distinction between “public” (or “state”) and “private” ownership. All of the resources of the Twin Oaks community are privately owned though most are not individually owned.
The resources of Fort Galt will also be privately owned though many will not be individually owned. The land and the maker space (the “capital” in the strictest, economic sense) is communally owned, so the internal, economic organization is a lot like Twin Oaks (which is a more conventional “commune”).
Jeff Peterson II June 7, 2015 , 12:44 am Vote2
“Most economists don’t use “capitalism” as Rothbaridans do, ”
And? I’d love to hear their definition, but otherwise this isn’t very interesting to me. I’m just repeating myself here at this point.
“so I’m not sure which economic definition you mean. ”
Private ownership of the means of production. You must be new here.
“If “anarchy”describes the absence of a state, an “anarchist” insisting that “private ownership” requires Rothbardian standards of propriety at the point of a gun (or guns) everywhere within a territory is a contradiction in terms”
Wow. Now there is a strawman. First of all, a bunch of people who own guns defending their own property is not a state. Second of all, I’m pretty sure you can only say that if you’ve disregarded polycentric law without a moments consideration.
“All of the resources of the Twin Oaks community are privately owned though most are not individually owned.”
Features of capitalism. You have to own resources to pool them, and the resources pooled in a firm or among partners, etc, are means of production.
Martin Brock June 7, 2015 , 5:52 am Vote0
How most economists use “capitalism” seemed important to you when “the economic definition” was your standard. Here’s a discussion of “capitalism”at econlib:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
“Private ownership of the means of production” raises more question than it answers. Again, all of the resources of Twin Oaks are privately owned, but it’s an egalitarian community holding most productive means in common, so it’s not what most people associate with “capitalism”. If you want to say that Twin Oaks is a capitalist community, you can do that, but your usage again is idiosyncratic. If a network of communities like Twin Oaks with no more central authority is “anarcho-capitalism”, then there is little difference between “anarcho-capitalism” and “anarcho-communism”, so I’m not sure what the fuss is about.
A hypothetical definition of “anarchism”, not attributed to you, is not a straw man argument.
A bunch of people with guns don’t have any property, not even their guns, without some definition of “property” that others respect, voluntarily or otherwise. This definition of “property” and enforcement of the corresponding rights of proprietors within a territory constitutes a “state”. As Robert Hessen states at econlib, “Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights.”
Resources need not be individually owned before being communally owned and often are not. Fort Galt is a good example. The land will be communally owned as soon as it is purchased.
Frontier communities are often established similarly. Settlers arrive as a group already committed to particular standards of propriety, like Christian standards, and claim territory as a group before agreeing that individual members of the group may govern particular resources within the territory exclusively. The community and its standards precede the individual property rights, not the other way around.
Jeff Peterson II June 7, 2015 , 2:04 pm Vote2
““Private ownership of the means of production” raises more question than it answers. ”
So? I never said it wouldn’t raise questions, just that it is amenable to analysis
” so it’s not what most people associate with “capitalism”.”
Again, and? As I said before, “Plenty of terms get away with being inadequately defined in dictionaries or the minds of casual users that have to be much more carefully defined when you’re doing something specialized like economics. In common use, the word means something pretty vague, arguably resembling what you described. But like a lot of terms that exist in common use, whatever is said about its definition turns out to be pretty useless when using it in a specialized context for analytical purposes.”
This point still stands. Simply paraphrasing the same argument over and over does not address this. Terms like “libertarian”, “anarchist”, and several others get abused, so what?
“constitutes a “state” [….] Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights.”
This is a clear misunderstanding of what a “state” is.
So if I understand your argument against the term “capitalism” is that many other people understand it differently, which is somehow a refutation of the term.
K. Good chat.
Martin Brock June 8, 2015 , 3:11 am Vote0
Common usage of a word is not abusive. It’s only what the word means in common use.
We can discuss what “capitalism” and “anarcho-capitalism” mean to Rothbardians and like-minded people, though most people don’t use the words similarly, and if we want to understand Rothbardians, we must.
If we want to persuade people who are not Rothbardians to embark on this examination of the more specialized usage, we must account for the common understanding in our invitation. In a sense, I’m still a communist, but this sense is far removed from common usage, so I don’t communicate effectively by labeling my position this way.
We can also understand what “communism” and “anarcho-communism” mean to people using these terms in a specialized sense, and we may then discover that “anarcho-communism”, in the specialized sense, is no more contradictory than “anarcho-capitalism”, even that people identifying with these labels can find common ground and begin to build free communities together.
This conversation seems to be occuring among the pioneers of Fort Galt. People building a real, voluntary community as free as possible from statecraft have less time to bicker over semantics or pick fights over whose assumptions are more contradictory.
Forden Freeman June 11, 2015 , 12:55 pm Vote2
The thing that most people forget is that we’re talking about anarchy. There will be communes, coops, and worker owned businesses. There will be far less absentee-owned property, far fewer large companies, and more local stuff. The issue with communism isn’t a matter of ownership (yes, that’s a problem but not the largest). The big issue with communism is that within a communist community there are no signals to produce. Without a price mechanism, one cannot allocate resources well enough to meet the demands for any product. You would need perfect information which is impossible to have.
Martin Brock June 12, 2015 , 1:18 am Vote3
I understand the Misean knowledge problem and acknowledge it here, but the vast majority of capital is organized within organizations without internal price signals. My employer is a multi-national corporation with over 150,000 employees, and it owns a vast assortment of capital and organizes this capital within the corporation without internal price signals. The corporation sends and receives prices signals through trade with factors outside of the corporation, and the same would be true in a network of intentional communities.
I expect free communities to be smaller and more diverse than corporations constrained by countless statutory impositions, but I don’t expect individual ownership of resources to be the rule within these communities any more than it’s the rule in “capitalist” economies today. Individual ownership would exist, but many resources, even most of them, would not be individually owned.
It can’t possibly be true that productivity requires everything to be priced in every transaction, because many (even most) transactions do not occur this way, even in freely organized, profit seeking enterprises, yet productivity exists.
Brian Tomlinson June 20, 2015 , 10:38 pm Vote0
Not merely no signals to produce, but no freedom in which to innovate.