http://www.anarchico.net/2011/02/how-dare-those-evil-greedy-capitalists.html
How Dare Those Evil Greedy Capitalists Call Themselves Anarchists!
Intoduction
This is a critique/reply on this article: An Anarchist Critique on “Anarcho” Statism. Clearly, there is some debate whether the idea of capitalism can be in line with the idea of anarchy. I am obviously one of those people that say that it is completely compatible with anarchy and in this post I will defend this side of the argument.
What’s in a Name?
Most if, not all, of early anarchistic opposition against capitalism was dealing with state capitalism. The assumption that capitalism has to involve a state is clearly false. A State involves having some sort of public good/ service while capitalism is the complete opposite of that, it advocates private goods and services. A State is always practicing a mixture of socialism and capitalism, so if one thinks that a pro-capitalist anarchist is not compatible with anarchy because the State practices capitalism, then one can make the same claim against a pro-socialist anarchist because the State practices socialism. Like other anarchists, capitalist anarchists also criticize state capitalism. I would also like to refute the claim that all anarchists are against profit, rent, and interest. Modern economics whether it is Keynesian, Neoclassical, or Austrian, recognize that factors of production are land, labor, capital, and entrepreneur ability. What we get in return from the factors of production are rent, wages, interest, and profits. The great market anarchist Gustave de Molinari recognized this as well. Not only that but he used such economic principles to explain how society can achieve private defense in his “Production of Security”. (Note: The author has criticisms towards Molinari and anarchy, which I will talk about later in this post.)
The author claims that anarcho capitalists hold the dictionary as a source of explaining anarchy. I don’t, so his claim is false. In the article, the author also claims, “As it stands, anarchists have rarely, if ever, argued that they were simply aiming to abolish the state. From Proudhon onward, they have stressed social and economic goals along with political ones. It is no coincidence that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book was “What is Property?” rather than “What is Government?” But Pierre Joseph Proudhon’s book “What is Property?” as a much fuller title, “An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government”. Nevertheless, we advocate something more than just to abolish government, and that is to advocate free markets. As I said before, the ideas of early anarchists towards capitalism deal with state capitalism and their false assumption that capitalism needs State.
Who cares what they thought?
If Gustave de Molinari was not an anarchist in practice, he sure was an anarchist in theory. Even Left Libertarians recognize this, like Roderick Long, going as far as calling Molinari the “originator of the theory of market anarchism.” Even if I hold the author’s claim as valid, then the whole theory of market anarchism would not be valid because the originator of such a theory was not anarchist. But a person doesn’t need to directly say, “I am an anarchist” in order to be an anarchist, does he/she? If so, where are the rules in order to become an anarchist? Do we need to fill out an “application of anarchy” in order to get accepted as an anarchist?
Let’s stray away from this subject for a minute and talk about the philosophy of Existentialism. Arguably, the father of Existentialism was the great Soren Kierkegaard, if we apply Kierkegaard’s philosophy, then we can imply that Kierkegaard would be quick to reject the Existentialist label. It still does not change the fact that Kierkegaard’s philosophy is very Existential. Albert Camus had this exact mindset that his philosophy was not Existentialist and he would reject the label, yet his philosophy is very Existentialist. The reason for this existentialist example is to point out that one could be something in theory, but not in practice.
Free to Choose… A Master
The way this section sounds to me is as follows, “Capitalism is nothing more than slavery, but at least the bright side is that one can choose their own master!” But, for the most part, slavery involves a zero-sum game. In other words, one side wins, while the other loses. Capitalism is not a zero sum game though. When two parties trade, they both benefit in the psych because in trade, and we trade because we value something MORE. Also, this ignores the advantage of the entrepreneur. If one is so “paranoid” with “choosing their master” then start a business of your own! Daniel Sanchez, from the Mises Community, has a great post how capitalism is more than what is implied in this anti-capitalistic article, here.
“Through the market process, the consumers tend to reward each producer according his contribution to consumer satisfaction: (1) the worker, through wages, according to the contribution of his labor, (2) the capitalist, through interest, according to the contribution of his providence, and to (3) the entrepreneur, through profit, according to the contribution of his judgment.”
The author’s whole view on capitalism is invalid and he clearly misunderstands capitalism as I, or fellow anarchists, view capitalism. That’s all I have to say…. Evil greedy capitalistic anarchist out–