An Anarchist FAQ (AFAQ) is now at version 15.7. This release is a revision of twoo appendices debunking a pro-"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ.
Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2
Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 4.1.1A revision of the appendices on Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" which refutes various claims in a FAQ written by an "anarcho"-capitalist economist. While it pretends to be objective, its biases are very obvious and its claims easily debunked.
This release marks International Workers' Day -- see section A.5.2 for the role of anarchists in its origins.
The appendices which have been revised can be considered as a supplement to section F (on "anarcho"-capitalism) and section G (on Individualist Anarchism) of the main AFAQ.
These appendices were amongst some of the first parts of AFAQ written, indeed there were once part of section F before being moved to an appendix (for obvious reasons, we hope). Reviewing the material after so many years was interesting, not least in how well it has stood the test of time. Nothing fundamental needed to be changed, almost just additions to existing arguments based on the wealth of material on and by classical anarchists which have become available. This can be seen from the discussion of Proudhon's ideas (and how Caplan simply ignores most of them in favour of a few minor, ideological favourable, aspects of them).
As discussed in the appendices, even in areas where there appears to be agreement (such as markets and property) between Individualist Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism this proves to be superficial as on closer inspection the two actually do not advocate quite the same things in spite using the same words (much the same can be said of communist-anarchism and Marxism, incidentally). Indeed, of Tucker's four monopolies -- credit, land, patents and tariff -- "anarcho"-capitalism would keep three (land, credit and patents, for Rothbard the latter would be based on a "contract theory" of copyright). Moreover, the motivation of the two is different -- with the "anarcho"-capitalist ideologue taking delight in dismissing the social reforms aimed for as well as the popular movements the individual anarchists were part of in nineteenth century America.
It drives home how alien "anarcho"-capitalism is from the anarchist tradition, even that closest to it (Individualist Anarchism). Anarchism has never been purely against the State but rather challenged all forms of authoritarian social relations -- social, economic and political. When an anarchist did not (Proudhon's sexist defence of patriarchy springs to mind), then subsequent libertarians critiqued them and pointed to the obvious contradictions. Read any article on anarchism by an anarchist and this quickly becomes clear -- the State is denounced but also capitalism and other forms of hierarchy. In short, "anarcho"-capitalism like all forms of propertarianism ("Libertarianism") pretends to advocate individualism, but really defends, when not lauding, dominion and exploitation.
It is particularly annoying that this ideology calls itself libertarian and anarchist when it is clearly neither. But, then, these advocates of property-rights stole their name -- as Murray Rothbard, a leading guru of "anarcho"-capitalism, admitted:
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence [in the late 1950s] is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . 'Libertarians' . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over, and more properly from the view of etymology; since we were proponents of individual liberty and therefore of the individual's right to his property." [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83]
Since AFAQ quoted this passage, it has appeared in other works (such as Wikipedia). It is amusing to wonder how many propertarians read it and did not bat an eyelid while having a hissy-fit over actual libertarians using the word to describe their ideas. But in this practice and ideology march hand-in-hand: respecting property rights has always been for other people under "actually existing" capitalism so why expect the ideological defenders of fictional capitalism to be any different. And if this is objected to, then there is a simple way to show consistency -- stop using the term libertarian. Anarchists will not be holding their breath but it would be pleasant to be proven wrong.
It could be objected that anarchists do not accept Rothbard's views of property. True, we advocate use rights rather than property rights: and we were still using the term "libertarian" -- in America, for example, the communist-anarchist Libertarian League was active between 1954 and 1965. Moreover, Rothbard considered his prejudices and desires as a "natural law" and inherent in our "nature" as human beings. So, presumably like evolution and gravity, his "natural law" applies even if we do not believe in it -- unless he views, as those expropriating native tribes did, socialists as somehow less than human (but, then, his "natural law" -- unlike gravity -- needs private police to enforce it).
This contrast between what is claimed and what is done reflects the history of "actually existing" capitalism. But such is the nature of ideology, its adherents cannot see the obvious contradictions they get themselves into. Thus, as we show, Rothbard himself, in his attempts to distance property from the State, ends up demonstrating their similarities. This is understandable, given the social relations they create. It is also understandable given that Rothbard follows Locke in his justification of property but stops short at Locke's final step wherein all the property-owners (landlords) voluntarily combine their "justly acquired" property into a joint-stock company called the State. Rothbard does not seem to notice that he simply has a series of smaller States (at least initially). It is the same "Just So" story but without the final chapter. Anarchists, needless to say, prefer to consider history than his story, for that is all it is -- an elaborate story which seeks to justify inequalities of wealth, power, property and so liberty.
Much of the discussion in the appendices is dedicated to refuting attempts to co-opt various dead anarchists for "anarcho"-capitalism. While Proudhon is one of the victims of Caplan, the American Individualist Anarchists are his main focus. This makes sense in any attempt to present "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism, for they were the closest to the "classical liberalism" which propertarianism sprang from. As Tucker noted:
"[Anarcho-communist John] Most is much nearer to [Marxist Henry] Hyndman than to Liberty, and Anarchism is much nearer to the Manchester men than to Most. In principle, that is. Liberty's aim -- universal happiness -- is that of all Socialists, in contrast with that of the Manchester men [who advocate laissez-faire capitalism] -- luxury fed by misery. But its principle -- individual sovereignty -- is that of the Manchester men, in contrast with that of the [State] Socialists -- individual subordination. But individual sovereignty, when logically carried out, leads, not to luxury fed by misery, but to comfort for all industrious persons and death for all idle ones." [Instead of a Book, p. 379]
Caplan has to deny "free market" capitalism is "luxury fed by misery" and ignore significant aspects of Individualist Anarchist ideas -- not least Tucker calling himself a socialist. That Tucker and other Individualist Anarchists called themselves socialists and viewed nineteenth century American capitalism as systematically and profoundly exploitative is significant. Of course, just because someone calls themselves a socialist (or anarchist) does not mean that they are (after all, for some the fact that Nazism is short for "National Socialism" seems enough for some on the right to claim that Hitler was "a socialist" in the face of the overwhelming evidence he was not). Likewise with "anarchist", for AFAQ was created to show that just because "anarcho"-capitalists called themselves "anarchists" (and a few academics were clueless enough to take such claims at face value) does not make it so. Reading the likes of Tucker shows that they were sincere in their socialism, seeking to end the exploitation of labour by capital and ensure the worker the full product of their labour (rather than just their wage). That social anarchists may consider that an unlikely outcome of both their strategy and goal is besides the point in terms of accepting their claims of socialism -- after all, as shown in section H, we consider Marxism as producing state-capitalism rather than genuine socialism but we do not deny them the name socialist (even if they often try to do so to us). Needless to say, we also reject Tucker's claim that communist anarchism is based on "individual subordination" -- particularly when the Manchester men defend the individual subordination that is wage-labour.
Interestingly, Rothbard in an -- at times extremely inaccurate -- article written around the same time he stole the term "libertarian" in the 1950s stated that we must "conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground and are being completely unhistorical." For anarchism "arose in the nineteenth century, and since then the most active and dominant anarchist doctrine has been that of 'anarchist communism'" an "apt term" for "a doctrine which has also been called 'collectivist anarchism,' 'anarcho-syndicalism,' and 'libertarian communism'" and so "it is obvious that the question 'are libertarians anarchists?' must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles." As for the individualist anarchists, they "possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common" with the others. This was "probably the main reason" why the "genuine libertarians" of this era "never referred to themselves as anarchists" -- not that they referred to themselves as libertarians either, unlike the communist and individualist anarchists. ["Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?", Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard, p. 32, p. 27, p. 30 and p. 31]
In short, anarchists have always held socialist economic doctrines even if they disagreed over what these ideas meant in terms final goals. A movement's political and economic ideas are not independent, they are interwoven and support each other. Anarchist "political" aims are premised on a specific socio-economic base -- remove that foundation and whatever is built upon it will collapse. Thus, without the socio-economic equality promised by the "socialistic economic doctrines [held] in common" then "anarchy" would simply be a series of private archies wherein a class of owners would rule a class of proletarians. It is no coincidence, then, that the first anarchist work asked the question What is Property?, answering it is both theft and despotism.
While these appendices stress the roots of both schools of anarchism in Proudhon's ideas, anarchism is not simply repeating them. Subsequent anarchists have developed these conceptions and rejected some of them (for various reasons, not least consistency). This is the nature of any living movement. Tucker, it is true, ignored many of Proudhon's positions and so narrowed his anarchism (and, as argued in section G.4, made it inconsistent). However, it remained both anti-State and anti-capitalist. The "anarcho"-capitalist narrows Tucker's position but to such a degree that it removes it from anarchism and places it within classical liberalism. In this Kropotkin was right when he suggested Tucker's ideas were a combination of Proudhon's and Herbert Spencer's -- by rejecting the socialist element, "anarcho"-capitalism is just an extreme form of "classical liberalism" which thinks that privatising the functions of the State equates to abolishing it and that rule by property owners does not count as rulership.
As readers of the English-language anarchist press of the 1880s and 1890s, will see it is clear that there was usually no love lost between most members of the various anarchist schools. Most schools saw attempts to ex-communicate the other from anarchism, either by denouncing them as Statists (individualists on communism) or as bourgeois (communists on individualism). It should be noted that such infighting has been a feature of socialism from the start. Proudhon clashed with Louis Blanc and Pierre Leroux (amongst others), Marx expelled Bakunin from the First International, Marxists labelled all anarchists bourgeois individualists and rejected their claims to socialism. As such, these polemics cannot be taken as evidence of a lack of socialism on the part of the Individualist Anarchists. Moreover, as soon becomes clear, these polemics often seemed to be based on a somewhat superficial understanding of the ideas being argued against. There is a difference in arguing that a given set of ideas will not result in the desired outcome and not accurately presenting the ideas nor the desired outcome. So, for numerous reasons, these debates generated more heat than light.
Again, it should be stressed that just as "anarcho"-capitalism has few adherents, Individualist Anarchism has always been a minority trend within anarchism. As such, it did not warrant much space in most accounts of anarchism (particularly those not focused upon North America). This lack of discussion and awareness undoubtedly helped those seeking to co-opt it as a (flawed) precursor of "anarcho"-capitalism -- anarchism has always suffered from people discussing it in ignorance or, worse, so selectively as to be misleading (ignoring those, academics or not, who were deliberately misleading, secure in the knowledge that it would be unlikely that they would be exposed). We hope that AFAQ has helped spread more knowledge and understanding of Individualist Anarchism even if, as should be obvious, it does not agreed with it nor think it would meet its stated goals.
Since AFAQ appeared, some have starting using the term "market anarchism" to describe Individualist Anarchism and mutualism. This can be considered as an equivalent of "market socialism" but the problem is that the term can be used by "anarcho"-capitalists in yet another attempt to smuggle their authoritarian ideology into anarchist circles. The way to determine whether any self-proclaimed "market anarchist" is a genuine anarchist or not is to ask the question in the work which named the anarchist tendency within socialism, namely "what is property?". If they cannot unambiguously answer with "theft" and "despotism", if they seek to qualify it, then care is needed -- particularly if they genuflect before the alter of the likes of Rothbard.
Finally, it should be noted that next year (2026) marks the 30th anniversary of the official launch of AFAQ. Given this, we aim to complete the revision of the various finished appendices by that date. Then we will work on the remaining unfinished appendix on the Russian Revolution (section H.6 does cover all the key issues). There is no date for that yet but we will aim to add to its blog a bit more regularly than previously. It all very much depends on other projects and life -- AFAQ is not funded at all and is dependent on people volunteering to work on it in their spare time. So hopefully understanding and patience will be expressed at its incomplete status after so many years!