Anarcho-Distributism: The Third Type of Libertarianism By W. J. Whitman “I wanted, though I did not know it then, a synthesis.” —Dorothy Day 1 Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Capitalism We are constantly bombarded by the worthless dialectic of the political processes of Liberal Democracy. We are given false dichotomies of left-wing vs. right-wing, liberal vs. conservative, libertarian socialist vs. anarcho-capitalist. These dichotomies are largely fictitious. We must transcend this dialectic and come to some sort of synthesis. There is no necessary contradiction between the radical “left-wing” and the radical “right-wing.” There is no fundamental disagreement between libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism. There is only an apparent contradiction due to a discontinuity of vocabulary—i.e. the same terms are being used by different people to mean different things. When the anarcho-capitalists condemn “socialism,” they are referring to state-socialism of the Marxian-type. The libertarian socialists do not advocate any such “socialism.” When libertarian socialists criticize “capitalism,” they are referring to state-capitalism of the Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes variety. The anarcho-capitalists do not advocate any such “capitalism.” In fact, the anarcho-capitalist ideas of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Hans- Hermann Hoppe are greatly influenced by the ideas of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin Tucker, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Lysander Spooner. Both anarcho-capitalism and libertarian socialism are rooted in the classical liberal tradition. They both advocate the free market and the abolition of the state. When Rothbard introduced the term “libertarian” to the American right, he was consciously identifying himself, as an anarcho-capitalist, with the market anarchism of the libertarian socialists. For the most part, the libertarians of both traditions are really advocating the same thing; they are merely calling it by different names. Anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism and libertarian socialism is market anarchism. The anarcho-capitalist and the anarcho-socialist are both part of one libertarian tradition. They have the same roots in classical liberalism and free-market economics and they advocate most of the same ideas. 1 Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness, Part 1, § 6
21
Embed
Anarcho-Distributism Documents/Anarcho... · anarcho-capitalists do not advocate any such “capitalism.” In fact, the anarcho-capitalist ideas of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Anarcho-Distributism:
The Third Type of Libertarianism By W. J. Whitman
“I wanted, though I did not know it then, a synthesis.”
—Dorothy Day1
Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Capitalism
We are constantly bombarded by the worthless dialectic of the political processes of
Liberal Democracy. We are given false dichotomies of left-wing vs. right-wing, liberal vs.
conservative, libertarian socialist vs. anarcho-capitalist. These dichotomies are largely fictitious.
We must transcend this dialectic and come to some sort of synthesis. There is no necessary
contradiction between the radical “left-wing” and the radical “right-wing.” There is no
fundamental disagreement between libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism. There is only
an apparent contradiction due to a discontinuity of vocabulary—i.e. the same terms are being
used by different people to mean different things. When the anarcho-capitalists condemn
“socialism,” they are referring to state-socialism of the Marxian-type. The libertarian socialists
do not advocate any such “socialism.” When libertarian socialists criticize “capitalism,” they are
referring to state-capitalism of the Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes variety. The
anarcho-capitalists do not advocate any such “capitalism.”
In fact, the anarcho-capitalist ideas of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Hans-
Hermann Hoppe are greatly influenced by the ideas of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin
Tucker, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Lysander Spooner. Both anarcho-capitalism and libertarian
socialism are rooted in the classical liberal tradition. They both advocate the free market and the
abolition of the state. When Rothbard introduced the term “libertarian” to the American right, he
was consciously identifying himself, as an anarcho-capitalist, with the market anarchism of the
libertarian socialists. For the most part, the libertarians of both traditions are really advocating
the same thing; they are merely calling it by different names. Anarcho-capitalism is
libertarianism and libertarian socialism is market anarchism. The anarcho-capitalist and the
anarcho-socialist are both part of one libertarian tradition. They have the same roots in classical
liberalism and free-market economics and they advocate most of the same ideas.
1 Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness, Part 1, § 6
Benjamin Tucker, one of the most prominent libertarian socialist theorists, says that “the
bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labor should be put in possession of its own.”2 Tucker
continues:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a
logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in
the early chapters of his ‘Wealth of Nations,’—namely, that labor
is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this
principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all
further considerations of it to devote himself to showing what
actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at
present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists
have followed his example by confining their function to the
description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial
phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the
description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the
means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after
Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up
where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical
conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
“This seems to have been done independently by three
different men, of three different nationalities, in three different
languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a
Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew….
“From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of
price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of
price—these three men made the following deductions: that the
natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is
the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift,
inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source
abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of
2 Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty, Ch. 1
labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three
forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the
trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute
for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor
which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be
gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that
the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing
more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the
landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact
usury from the labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal
privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the
enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down
monopoly….
“It was at this point—the necessity of striking down
monopoly—that came the parting of their ways. Here the road
forked. 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.
“First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the
doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the
government, regardless of individual choice.
“Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish
the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all
industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive
agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State….
“This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as
the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by
individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be
abolished.
“When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search
for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class
monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority,
and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this
Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot
Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by
making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They
saw in competition the great leveler of prices to the labor cost of
production. In this they agreed with the political economists. The
query then naturally presented itself why all prices do not fall to
labor cost; where there is any room for incomes acquired otherwise
than by labor; in a word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest,
rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the one-sidedness
of competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated
legislation…that almost no competition at all is allowed in
supplying capital…
“Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to
sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But,
though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed
nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to
all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few.
And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be
done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus
bringing the price of its own use down to cost,—that is, to nothing
beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it. So
they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home,
as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the
Manchester doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule. Under this
banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-
inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class
monopolies that now prevail.”3
The early anarchists (i.e. libertarian socialists) held that all monopolies rest upon special
privileges granted by the state. The state itself is a monopoly—a monopoly on the “legitimate”
use of violence (under the euphemism of “defense”), a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of theft
(under the euphemism of “taxation”), a monopoly on the “legitimate” counterfeiting of money
(under the euphemism of “expansionary monetary policy”). In order to achieve the free-market
ideal of libertarian socialism, all monopolies have to be abolished. This means that the state itself
(because it too is a monopoly) needs to be abolished in order for a free market to exist.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon writes:
“As a variety of the liberal regime I have mentioned
anarchy—the government of each by himself, self-government….
politically, the idea of anarchy is quite as rational and concrete as
any other. What it means is that political functions have been
reduced to industrial functions, and that social order arises from
nothing but transactions and exchanges. Each may then say that he
is the absolute ruler of himself, the polar opposite of monarchical
absolutism…. anarchy is the ideal of the economists, who attempt
strenuously to put an end to all governmental institutions and to
rest society upon the foundations of property and free labour
alone.”4
As you can see, libertarian socialism is a form of market anarchism. Murray Rothbard’s
notion of anarcho-capitalism is based almost entirely on the ideas of the libertarian socialists.
Rothbard’s ideas are by no means original. He is merely a synthesizer of earlier views. He has
taken a great deal from the libertarian socialists and mixed it with some of the ideas of the
Austrian School economists. On the topic of libertarian socialism, Rothbard writes:
“I must begin by affirming my conviction that Lysander Spooner
and Benjamin R. Tucker were unsurpassed as political
philosophers and that nothing is more needed today than a revival
3 Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty, Ch. 1 4 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Principle of Federation, Part 1, § 2, 4
and development of the largely forgotten legacy that they left to
political philosophy. It was left to Spooner and Tucker to
adumbrate the way in which all individuals could abandon the
State and cooperate to their own vast mutual benefit in a society of
free and voluntary exchanges and interrelations. By doing this,
Spooner and Tucker advanced libertarian individualism from a
protest against existing evils to pointing the way to an ideal society
toward which we can move; and what is more, they correctly
located that ideal in the free market which already partially existed
and was providing vast economic and social benefits. Thus,
Spooner, Tucker, and their movement not only furnished a goal
toward which to move, but they also greatly surpassed previous
‘utopians’ in locating that goal in already-existing institutions
rather than in a coercive or impossible vision of a transformed
mankind. Their achievement was truly remarkable, and we have
not yet risen to the level of their insights.”5
It is not difficult to detect Rothbard’s admiration of the libertarian socialists here. He goes so far
as to say that they are “unsurpassed as political philosophers” and that we need a “revival of their
legacy.” Rothbard continues:
“I am, therefore, strongly tempted to call myself an ‘individualist
anarchist,’ except for the fact that Spooner and Tucker have in a
sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that
doctrine I have certain differences. Politically, these differences are
minor, and therefore the system that I advocate is very close to
theirs; but economically, the differences are substantial, and this
means that my view of the consequences of putting our more or
less common system into practice is very far from theirs.”6
5 Murray Rothbard, The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economists View (in Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume
20, No. 1 (Winter 2006):5-15 6 Murray Rothbard, The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economists View (in Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume
typical distributist gathers arguments against this wage-slavery definition of “capitalism,” and
continues from there to his critique of anarcho-capitalism. But anarcho-capitalism does not
advocate “capitalism” in that sense. “Capitalism,” as defined by anarcho-capitalists, is merely an
economic system with a free market wherein property rights are respected and preserved. This
particular definition of “capitalism” is totally different from the sort of “capitalism” that G. K.
Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were criticizing so long ago.
When Chesterton and Belloc criticized “socialism,” they defined socialism as State-
ownership of the means of production.13
When distributists criticize libertarian socialists, they
start with the typical ChesterBellocian critique of socialism as state-ownership of the means of
production, then conclude that libertarian socialists are wrong because “socialism” is wrong. But
it is quite obvious that libertarian socialists do not advocate state-ownership of the means of
production. On the contrary, libertarian socialists are anarchists! They advocate the abolition of
the state altogether. If they are advocating the abolition of the state, then they certainly cannot
advocate state-ownership of anything! Libertarian socialists are not “socialists” in that sense.
They are socialists in a totally different sense. To the libertarian socialists, “socialism” means the
abolition of state-capitalism in order to allow for a truly free market in which property will
naturally be distributed in a more equitable fashion. This definition of “socialism” is almost
synonymous with “distributism.”14
The only major point of disagreement between the
distributists and the libertarian socialists is on the topic of the state. Distributists want a more-or-
less minimalist state, whereas the libertarian socialists want to get rid of the state completely.
vast majority of men are not capitalists; that is, they do not have sufficient capital to make their own livings, either
alone or in cooperation with their neighbors, but must work for wages in order to live.” 13 Cf. Hilaire Belloc, Nationalization: “Those adhering to this sect (commonly known as Socialists) usually regard
inequality, and always regard ‘exploitation’ as immoral; and to eliminate these two evils which they postulate as
irreconcilable with any right living, they propose to eliminate private property in the means of production and to vest
all that can be vested in the hands of the State.” The term socialism was coined in reference to the political
philosophy of Robert Owen, Josiah Warren, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Seeing that Warren and Proudhon were
both opposed to the very existence of the state, it is quite obvious that their “socialism” (i.e. the original socialism)
was certainly not synonymous with “state-ownership of the means of production.” Nevertheless, Belloc himself
criticizes Proudhon and falsely asserts that he “postulated the ownership, management and control [of the means of
production and the distribution of wealth] by officers of the State.”(ibid.) 14 Cf. Donald P. Goodman III: “This is the defining characteristic of Distributism: the widescale distribution of
productive property throughout society, such that ownership of it is the norm, rather than the exception.”(An
Introduction to Distributism, Part 1) & “The widespread distribution of productive property is the primary goal of
Distributism.”(An Introduction to Distributism, Part 2) Also, consider the title of John Médaille’s magnum opus in
defense of distributism—Toward a Truly Free Market.