Anarchy

In this episode of Fascinating! Rik from Planet Vulcan discusses the substance and the history of modern anarchist thinking, from its beginnings in the nineteenth century where opposition to the state was combined with opposition to capitalism, to twentieth century developments in anarchist thinking, where opposition to the legitimacy of the state is combined with free-market capitalism in Anarcho-Capitalism.  Early thinkers never successfully engaged with the unavoidable problem of scarcity, as anarcho-capitalists have done.  Anarcho-capitalists have fixed one flaw, but are there others?  Is it truly workable?

Transcript

Anarchy

 Good day to you, and welcome to Fascinating!  I am your host Rik, from Planet Vulcan.  My continuing mission on Planet Earth:  to search for signs of intelligence and to encourage its spread.

A fascinating meme on Planet Earth is the idea of anarchy.  The word literally means “no government”, and there is more than one strain of thought on your planet that leads to an advocacy of anarchy. 

The oldest strain of anarchic thinking in modern times predates Karl Marx, promoted by such thinkers as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 – 1865), the first writer to use the term anarchy, and then Mikhail Bakunin (1814 – 1876), and Peter Kropotkin (1842 – 1921).  The most prominent female anarchist was Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940).

A newer strain of anarchic thinking began in the twentieth century, and is generally labeled anarcho-capitalism. 

This view is promoted by such thinkers as Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995, Hans-Hermann Hoppe (born 1949), Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002), and from the 19th century, Lysander Spooner (1808 – 1887). 

Let’s profile each of these thinkers. 

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was born into a modest family in Besançon, France.  

He lived through a period of intense social ferment, including the French Revolution of 1848, and was an influential figure in the workers' movements of the 19th century. His most famous declaration, "Property is theft!" encapsulated his critique of private property, though his views on this topic evolved throughout his life. 

His political philosophy was based on mutualism, a system in which individuals and small groups exchange goods and services based on reciprocity and free contracts, without government interference. Proudhon believed that private property, especially when used as a means of exploiting others, was the root of social inequality and injustice. However, he distinguished between "property" as capital (which he opposed) and "possession" (personal property), which he supported. 

Proudhon’s approach to anarchism became more pragmatic as he aged, seeking to balance liberty and order through decentralized, cooperative institutions. Unlike later anarchists, Proudhon was not entirely opposed to some form of limited government, especially during transitions to a stateless society. 

Of all the early anarchists, Mikhail Bakunin was the one who most advocated violence and bloodshed as the path to a better world.  His advocacy paralleled that of Karl Marx in this respect. 

Born into a noble family in Russia, Bakunin was originally trained as a military officer, but soon left for Europe, where he immersed himself in radical political movements. He participated in the 1848 European revolutions and became involved with various revolutionary causes throughout Europe, including attempts to overthrow monarchies and state structures. His lifelong opposition to authoritarianism led to frequent imprisonments and exiles. 

Bakunin’s anarchism was strongly anti-authoritarian, and he is best known for his vehement opposition to both the state and capitalism. He argued that political freedom could not be achieved without the destruction of all hierarchical structures, especially the state, which he saw as the most oppressive institution. Bakunin's view was that the state and the capitalist system worked hand in hand to perpetuate the domination of the few over the many. 

Although Bakunin and Karl Marx pretty much saw eye to eye when it came to their diagnosis of capitalism, Bakunin opposed Marx’s ideas about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and was skeptical that such a regime would ever lead to a withering away of the state as Marx imagined. 

Instead, Bakunin advocated for spontaneous, grassroots revolutions and the immediate abolition of the state in favor of decentralized, federated communities where workers would collectively manage society through free associations. His philosophy of "collectivist anarchism" emphasized social solidarity, cooperation, and mutual aid. 

Peter Kropotkin was another Russian aristocrat, who was a geographer and evolutionary theorist. He became one of the foremost advocates of anarcho-communism. His travels and studies led him to embrace anarchism, especially after witnessing the poverty and oppression of peasants and workers. He was imprisoned for his revolutionary activities and later fled from Russia to Western Europe, where he continued to write and advocate for anarchist ideas. 

Kropotkin’s anarchism was grounded in his scientific studies, particularly his research on natural cooperation in the animal kingdom, which he detailed in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. He argued that cooperation and mutual support were just as crucial for survival as Darwinian fitness. 

This idea became central to his vision of a stateless, classless society based on mutual aid and communal ownership. 

Kropotkin was unique among early anarchists, because he at least recognized the problem of scarcity and realized that it had to be addressed.  He believed that technological advances would allow society to produce enough for everyone, eliminating scarcity and making money and the wage system obsolete.  

Kropotkin also stressed that revolutionary change should come through voluntary, cooperative action rather than violent insurrection, though he did not reject revolutionary violence entirely. His works, such as The Conquest of Bread, and Fields, Factories and Workshops, laid out his detailed vision of a decentralized, cooperative society. 

Emma Goldman is perhaps the most well-known female anarchist.  

Goldman advocated for a range of anarchist principles, including individual freedom, direct action, and the abolition of both the state and capitalism. She was also a pioneer in advocating for women’s rights, including birth control, free love, and sexual freedom. She viewed marriage and traditional gender roles as oppressive institutions intentionally designed to subjugate women.

Her essays and speeches, including works like Anarchism and Other Essays (1910), remain foundational texts for anarchism and feminism. 

Murray Rothbard is considered the founding figure of anarcho-capitalism. He combined the classical liberal ideas of individual liberty and free markets with the anti-state principles of anarchism.  This makes Rothbard the first person in the history of modern anarchism to come to grips with the problem of scarcity.  The failure to do so by other advocates of anarchism was a fatal flaw.

Rothbard believed that all functions of the state, including law enforcement, defense, and legal systems, could and should be provided by private, voluntary market arrangements. He argued that taxation is theft, and that a truly free society requires the complete abolition of the state.

His major published works include Man, Economy, and State (1962), For a New Liberty (1973), The Ethics of Liberty (1982). 

Rothbard is a key figure in both the Austrian School of economics and the modern libertarian movement. His writings laid the intellectual foundation for anarcho-capitalism and continue to influence contemporary libertarian thought. 

Hans-Herman Hoppe is a German economist and philosopher closely associated with the Austrian School of economics and Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. 

Hoppe’s most distinctive contribution is his argument for anarcho-capitalism using “argumentation ethics,” which posits that the act of engaging in rational discourse presupposes the legitimacy of private property and non-aggression. He is known for advocating a system of “private law societies” in which competing private agencies provide legal and security services. 

His major published works include Democracy: The God That Failed (2001), and The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (1993). 

Robert Nozick did not advocate full anarcho-capitalism, and he did not self-identify as libertarian.  But his philosophical work was highly influential in the broader libertarian movement and helped popularize discussions around minimal-state societies and stateless societies. 

In his magnum opus, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Nozick argues for a minimal state (a “night-watchman” state) but engages deeply with the idea of anarcho-capitalism. He examines whether a state is necessary at all, providing a framework for anarcho-capitalist theorists to develop further arguments against the state. 

Lysander Spooner lived before the formal development of anarcho-capitalism, but his work has been highly influential on its development. A 19th-century American political philosopher, lawyer, and an abolitionist, Spooner is often cited by anarcho-capitalists for his anti-state and pro-market views. 

Spooner’s most famous work, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, is a critique of the U.S. Constitution and the idea that the state has legitimate authority over individuals. He argued that natural law and voluntary agreements between individuals should replace state-enforced laws and that all services, including legal and security, should be provided by private enterprise.

We should note that works of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek on free markets, individual liberty, and the limits of government have been influential in shaping the economic arguments of anarcho-capitalists. While neither von Mises nor Hayek called themselves anarcho-capitalists, their critiques of central planning and defense of free markets laid much of the groundwork for anarcho-capitalist ideas. 

Both anarcho-capitalism and classical anarchism are strongly opposed to the existence of the state. They view the state as an inherently coercive, and thus illegitimate, institution that restricts individual freedom unnecessarily and imposes unjust authority. 

Both strains of anarchism value individual liberty. They argue that individuals should be free to govern their own lives without being subject to the domination of external authorities, be it the state or other hierarchical structures. 

Both strains of anarchism advocate for decentralized social and economic systems, rejecting centralized authority. Anarcho-capitalists envision a decentralized market system with competing providers of goods and services, while classical anarchists call for decentralized communities based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. 

Anarcho-capitalism sees the voluntary exchange of goods and services as the highest expression of individual freedom. Private property, especially in the form of capital (i.e., businesses, land), is considered a fundamental human right.  Without a right to property, the promises of a right to liberty and a right to life ring hollow. 

Anarcho-capitalists believe that order emerges spontaneously in society as it does in nature, and that this type of order is the only order Earthlings really need. 

Traditional anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin are explicitly anti-capitalist. They argue that capitalism is exploitative because, they believed, it concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few and subordinates the interests of workers to the interests of the owners of capital.   

Anarcho-capitalists view corporations and markets as natural extensions of individual freedom. Corporations are seen as voluntary associations of individuals coming together to produce goods and services, while markets are the fairest and most efficient way to allocate resources and satisfy human needs. 

Classical anarchists advocate for worker self-management and cooperative enterprises.  They believe that once the oppressive structures of the state and capitalism are removed, people will naturally cooperate to ensure mutual well-being. 

Anarcho-capitalists assume that individuals are self-interested, and they do not view self-interest as antisocial or a sign of moral deficiency.  Cooperation emerges when individuals respect other people’s rights to life, liberty and property.  

Classical anarchists see capitalism as incompatible with true freedom, while anarcho-capitalists see free enterprise as essential to individual liberty.  

From the Vulcan’s-eye view, the classical anarchists, although they made some good arguments, especially about the unnecessary evil of authoritarian government, had a view of capitalism that misunderstood its essence and equated it with economic exploitation, supported by an alliance with government.  To us that looks more like a corruption of capitalism rather than its essence. 

They also, with the exception of Kropotkin, failed to come to grips with the universal and unavoidable problem of scarcity, and believed that it would be possible for people to own resources in common and to get along by sharing, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. 

Scarcity is the difference between what people collectively desire and the amount of stuff there actually is.  Without some way to deal with scarcity, it is unrealistic to expect that social order will emerge. 

Classical anarchists also fell prey to the zero-sum thinking that comes so easily to Earthlings; and to the idea that competition is the opposite of cooperation, when in fact competition within a framework of rules is simply a method of cooperation.  And they seemed also to believe that the pinnacle of moral action was self-sacrifice, and that pursuit of self-interest was at best morally suspect. 

And it is still a major problem with the thinking of many Earthlings, that the idea that you can win without beating anyone is not just a possibility, but a commonplace in today’s world. 

And capitalism, properly understood, in truth is a system of sharing, where the value of your claim on goods and services is equal to the value of what you have contributed to the pool of goods and services, and has nothing to do with need, an undefinable and problematic concept if ever there was one. 

I invite you to listen to the next essay in the Fascinating! podcast series, and to have a look at the Fascinating! YouTube Channel. 

Please recommend Fascinating! to your friends if you find the lessons from nature in these essays personally valuable. 

Theme music:  Helium, with thanks to TrackTribe 

Live long and prosper. 

Savor your experiences. 

Treasure your memories.

Anticipate a happy and rewarding future.

And respect nature’s wisdom.