Anarcho-capitalist author and theorist Murray Rothbard, who coined the term itself and developed such philosophy from the 1950s through the 1970s, stated that individualist anarchism is different from capitalism because the individualist anarchists retain the labor theory of value and socialist doctrines. Anarchist commentators do not consider anarcho-capitalism as a legitimate form of anarchism due to perceived coercive characteristics of capitalism. In particular, they argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion in violation of anarchist principles.
It has been pointed out that historically the anarcho-communist economic theories published by Peter Kropotkin and others have been ignored or intentionally sidelined by historians. Anarchists such as Kropotkin object to the portrayal of economics as a value-free science, arguing in Revolutionary Pamphlets:
[A]ll the so-called laws and theories of political economy are in reality no more than statements of the following nature: "Granting that there are always in a country a considerable number of people who cannot subsist a month, or even a fortnight, without accepting the conditions of work imposed upon them by the State, or offered to them by those whom the State recognizes as owners of land, factories, railways, etc., then the results will be so and so." So far middle-class political economy has been only an enumeration of what happens under the just-mentioned conditions—without distinctly stating the conditions themselves. And then, having described the facts which arise in our society under these conditions, they represent to us these facts as rigid, inevitable economic laws.
Within the realm of anarchist labor issues is the issue of the monetary system. While all anarchists are against the current monetary system, there is disagreement as to whether or not there should be a monetary system. Alexander Berkman was an anarchist against the monetary system. In his book What Is Anarchism?, Berkman argues that in an anarchist society money would become unnecessary. Within anarchy, all occupations are viewed as equally beneficial to society. Since the concept of value is different for everyone and cannot be determined, it is argued that it should not be set and one's contribution to society through their occupation entitled them to be a part of it. Within this system, there is a free distribution of goods without the need for money. Money in its current form is a hierarchical system, the exception being when all people are paid equal salaries. The argument goes further to question the purpose of money if people are paid equally. Those who agree with this would also note that a monetary system would open a vulnerability for some to acquire more of it and create a class system. Some individualist anarchists and mutualists do not oppose the idea of money and see currency as a tangible form of workers receiving the full product of their labor. They support mutual banking (some individualists support no banking at all to keep exchange rates constant) and local currency as opposed to national currency. Others see money as simply an index for exchanging goods and that its existence would not necessarily create a class system.
Some market abolitionist anarchists argue that while supporters of capitalism and the Austrian School in particular recognize equilibrium prices do not exist, they nonetheless claim that these prices can be used as a rational basis whilst this is not the case, hence markets are not efficient. Anarchists such as Rudolf Rocker argued that a state is required to maintain private property and for capitalism to function. Similarly, Albert Meltzer argued that anarcho-capitalism simply cannot be anarchism because capitalism and the state are inextricably interlinked and because capitalism exhibits domineering hierarchical structures such as that between an employer and an employee.
The anti-capitalist tradition of classical anarchism has remained prominent within post-classical and contemporary currents. Anarchists are committed against coercive authority in all forms, namely "all centralized and hierarchical forms of government (e.g., monarchy, representative democracy, state socialism, etc.), economic class systems (e.g., capitalism, Bolshevism, feudalism, slavery, etc.), autocratic religions (e.g., fundamentalist Islam, Roman Catholicism, etc.), patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, and imperialism". Anarchist schools of thought disagree on the methods by which these forms should be opposed.
Anarcho-capitalists believe that inequality is not a major concern so long as everyone has equality of opportunity. Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard argued that "the 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed to inequality".Mises Institute author W. Duncan Reekie argue that because of a person's self-ownership, any freedom given up in a laissez-faire marketplace would be a voluntary contract and that there is nothing authoritarian about capitalist employer–employee relationships in such a condition, writing: "There is nothing authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract". According to anarchist Peter Sabatini, anarcho-capitalists see "nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now".
Rothbard defined equality as "A and B are 'equal' if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. [...] There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be 'equal' in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all their attributes". Rothbard argued that "men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality". This runs counter the concept of equality amongst anarchists as they argue that freedom without equality simply gives more freedom to those who are supposedly superior and that equality without freedom is a form of oppression.
Collectivist anarchistMikhail Bakunin famously proclaimed: "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". With equality meaning equal liberty, Bakunin also argued that "I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation".
"But will not life under Anarchy, in economic and social equality mean general leveling?" you ask. No, my friend, quite the contrary. Because equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. [...] Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. [...] Life in freedom, in Anarchy, will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.
While anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard consider themselves part of the individualist anarchist tradition, drawing upon the writings of early American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting their normative claims and other socialist doctrines, Tucker, Spooner and others argued that unequal wealth would not equal an unequal society. Those anarchists believed that equality of condition, equality of access to the means of production and equal opportunity would counteract any potential tyranny in a market society. In following William Godwin, anarchists insist that "inequality corrupts freedom. Their anarchism is directed as much against inequality as against tyranny". It has been argued that while anarcho-capitalists such Rothbard and David D. Friedman have been "sympathetic to Spooner's individualist anarchism", they "fail to notice or conveniently overlook its egalitarian implications". Tucker argued for a society with "the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty".
There is some debate about the question of private property and economic organization which is mainly caused by the meaning of private property. Social anarchists claim that the existence of private property (productive property) results in wage slavery while certain anti-capitalistindividualist anarchists and mutualists argue for private property (personal property and possessions) and wages owned and controlled directly by workers themselves in the form of worker cooperatives such as labor-owned cooperative firms and associations. For the anarchist and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "strong workers' associations would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis".
While anarcho-capitalists make no distinction between private property and personal property, this is extremely important to anarchists and other socialists because in the capitalist mode of production private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent. They make the following distinctions:
Personal property, or possession, includes items intended for personal use (e.g. one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, vehicles and sometimes money). It must be gained in a socially fair manner and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.
Anarchists generally agree that private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g. artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas. In this context, private property and ownership means ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions.
Individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, who identified his individualist anarchism as anarchistic socialism, are opposed to both capitalism and compulsory communism. Those anarchists support wage labor as long as the employers and employees are paid equally for equal hours worked and neither party has authority over the other. This approach was put into practice in American individualist anarchist colonies such as Utopia, organized by Josiah Warren. By following this principle, no individual profits from the labor of another. Tucker described the wages received in such an employer-employee relationship as the individual laborer's full product. He envisioned that in such a society every worker would be self-employed and own their own private means of production, free to walk away from employment contracts. Tucker called communism "pseudo-anarchism" because it opposes wages and property, fearing that collectivization would subdue individuals to group mentality and rob workers of the full product of their labor.
Anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe claim that their philosophy predates the socialist forms of anarchism as according to them various liberal theorists have espoused legal and political philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. However, the first person to use the term anarcho-capitalism was Murray Rothbard, who synthesized in the mid-20th century elements from the Austrian School, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting their labor theory of value and the norms they derived from it. A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow". This pact would recognize self-ownership, property, contracts and tort law in keeping with the universal non-aggression principle, with anarcho-capitalists arguing that it represents the only pure form of anarchism.
Rothbard argued that the capitalist system is not properly anarcho-capitalist because it so often colludes with the state, writing: "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation. State capitalism inevitably creates all sorts of problems which become insoluble". According to Rothbard, "what Marx and later writers have done is to lump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call 'free-market capitalism' on the one hand, and 'state capitalism' on the other". However, despite Rothbard's claims, Marxists do make a distinction between free-market capitalism and state capitalism. The term state capitalism was first used by Marxist politician Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 and Friedrich Engels, who developed Marxist theory, talked about capitalism with state ownership as a different form of capitalism.
Rothbard maintained that anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism—the only form of anarchism that could possibly exist in reality as he argues that any other form presupposes an authoritarian enforcement of political ideology such as "redistribution of private property". According to this argument, the free market is simply the natural situation that would result from people being free from authority and entails the establishment of all voluntary associations in society such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations, businesses and so on. Moreover, anarcho-capitalists as well as classical liberal minarchists argue that the application of anarchist ideals as advocated by what they term left-wing anarchists would require an authoritarian body of some sort to impose it. Based on their understanding of anarchism, in order to forcefully prevent people from accumulating capital, which they believe is a goal of those anarchists, there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort which would have the authority to in essence exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. They conclude that this body would inherently have political power and would be nothing short of a state. The difference between such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is what anarcho-capitalists see as the voluntary nature of organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a centralized ideology and a paired enforcement mechanism which they believe would be necessary under a "coercively" egalitarian-anarchist system. On the other hand, anarchists argue that a state is required to maintain private property and for capitalism to function.
Rothbard also wrote a piece published posthumously entitled "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?" in which he traced the etymological roots of anarchist philosophy, ultimately coming to the conclusion that "we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. That none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines". Furthermore, he wrote: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist".
Conversely, anarchists do not believe that anarcho-capitalism can be considered to be a part of the anarchist movement due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and see anarchism as fundamentally incompatible with capitalism because capitalism produces an economic hierarchy. Throughout its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism which they believe can be maintained only by state violence. Anarchists follow Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in opposing ownership of workplaces by capitalists and aim to replace wage labor with workers' associations. Anarchists also agree with Peter Kropotkin's comment that "the origin of the anarchist inception of society [lies in] the criticism [...] of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society" rather than in simple opposition to the state or government. They argue that the wage system is hierarchical and authoritarian in nature and consequently capitalism cannot be anarchist.
Individualist anarchists, including Tucker and Spooner who Rothbard claimed as anarcho-capitalist influences, considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists [who see] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism". Many defined themselves as socialists. Those early individualist anarchists defined capitalism in various ways, but it was often discussed in terms of usury: "There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer". Excluding these, they tended to support free trade, free competition and varying levels of private property such as mutualism based on occupation and use property norms. It is this distinction which has led to the rift between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, with the latter supporting the homestead principle. As anarchists consider themselves to be socialists and opposed to capitalism, anarcho-capitalism is seen as not being a form of anarchism.
Anarchist organisations such as the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (Spain) and the Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland) generally take an explicitly anti-capitalist stance. When in the 20th century several economists began to formulate a form of radical American libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism, this has met resistance from those who hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive or statist and many anarchists and scholars do not consider anarcho-capitalism to properly cohere with the spirit, principles, or history of anarchism. While other anarchists and scholars regard anarchism as referring only to opposition to the non-privatisation of all aspects of the state and do consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism,Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman and Chris Matthew Sciabarra maintain that—because of its heritage, emancipatory goals and potential—radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists can and should call themselves socialists, echoing the language of American individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and British Thomas Hodgskin.
William Gillis has argued that proponents of a genuinely free market, termed freed market to distinguish it from the common conception which those left-libertarians believe markets to be riddled with capitalist and statist privileges, should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global anti-capitalist movement while emphasizing that the abuses the anti-capitalist movement highlights result from state-tolerated violence and state-secured privilege rather than from voluntary cooperation and exchange. Those left-libertarians, also referred to as left-wing market anarchists and market-oriented left-libertarians, distingue themselves from anarcho-capitalists. Like anarcho-capitalists, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets, but they maintain that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical and pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly radical views regarding socio-cultural issues.
Anarcho-capitalists who argue for private property which supports absentee and landlordism ownership rather than occupation and use property norms as well as the principle of homesteading are considered right-libertarians rather than anarchists. This is due to anarchism, including the individualists, viewing any absentee ownership and ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate, seeing the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation as advocated by some anarcho-capitalists as anathema to schools of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise.
Left-wing market anarchists are closer to mutualism and part of the market anarchist tradition in arguing that a true free-market or laissez-faire system would be best served under socialism rather than capitalism. Chartier has argued that anarcho-capitalists should reject capitalism and call themselves freed-market advocates, writing:
[I]t makes sense for [freed-market advocates] to name what they oppose "capitalism." Doing so calls attention to the freedom movement's radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren't confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary people around the world who use "capitalism" as a short-hand label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their lives.
Anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism does not in fact get rid of the state and that it simply privatises it. According to Brian Morris, anarcho-capitalists "simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood". According to anarchist Peter Sabatini, anarcho-capitalism "represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state", but that anarcho-capitalists' claim as anarchists is "quickly voided" because they "only wants an end to the public state" and allow "countless private states", or that it dissolves into city states as argued by Paul Birch.
Another criticism is that anarcho-capitalism turns justice into a commodity as private defense and court firms would favour those who pay more for their services. Anarchists such as Albert Meltzer argue that since anarcho-capitalism promotes the idea of private armies such as private defense agencies, it actually supports a "limited State". Meltzer contends that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering it". Anarcho-capitalists believe that negative rights should be recognized as legitimate, but positive rights should be rejected. Some critics reject the distinction between positive and negative rights, including Peter Marshall and Noam Chomsky. Marshall argues that the anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative and that it cannot guarantee the positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence. About anarcho-capitalism, Chomsky has written:
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
Anarchists argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion which violates both anarchist principles and anarcho-capitalism's non-aggression principle.
Anarchists view any ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate. While anarchists, including individualist anarchists, market anarchists and mutualists, adamantly oppose absentee ownership, anarcho-capitalists have strong abandonment criteria in which one maintains ownership until one agrees to trade or gift it. Anarchists critics of this view tend to have comparatively weak abandonment criteria as one loses ownership when one stops personally occupying and using it. Furthermore, the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation is considered to be anathema to anarchist schools of thought as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise.
Anarchist schools of thought encompass not only a range of individual schools, but also a considerable divergence in the use of some key terms. Some terms such as socialism have been subject to multiple definitions and ideological struggle throughout the period of the development of anarchism. Others such as capitalism are used in divergent and often contradictory ways by different schools within the tradition. In addition, the meanings of terms such as mutualism have changed over time, sometimes without spawning new schools. All of these terminological difficulties contribute to misunderstandings within and about anarchism. A central concern is whether anarchism is defined in opposition to hierarchy, authority and the state, or simply capitalism and the state. Debates over the meaning of anarchism emerge from the fact that it refers to both an abstract philosophical position and to intellectual, political and institutional traditions, all of which have been fraught with conflict. Some minimal, abstract definitions encourage the inclusion of figures, movements and philosophical positions which have historically positioned themselves outside, or even in opposition to, individuals and traditions that have identified themselves as anarchist. While anti-statism is central, there is a lot of talk among scholars and anarchists on the matter and various currents perceive anarchism slightly differently.
The belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society.
A suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.
Usages in political circles have varied considerably. In 1888, the individualist anarchistBenjamin Tucker included the full text of a "Socialistic Letter" by Ernest Lesigne in his essay on "State Socialism and Anarchism". According to Lesigne, there are two socialisms: "One is dictatorial, the other libertarian". In 1894, Richard T. Ely noted that anarchism had "already acquired a variety of meanings". In its most general sense, these included the view that society is "a living, growing organism, the laws of which are something different from the laws of individual action". Anti-capitalism is considered a necessary element of anarchism by anarchists. The usage of libertarian is also in dispute. While both anarchists and anarcho-capitalist have used it, libertarian was synonymous with anarchism until the mid-20th century, when anarcho-capitalist theory developed.
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from the dominant anarchist tradition by their relation to property and capital. While both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism share general antipathy towards power by government authority, the latter exempts power wielded through free-market capitalism. Anarchists, including egoists such as Max Stirner, have supported the protection of an individual's freedom from powers of both government and private property owners. In contrast, while condemning governmental encroachment on personal liberties, anarcho-capitalists support freedoms based on private property rights. Anarcho-capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard argued that protesters should rent a street for protest from its owners. The abolition of public amenities is a common theme in some anarcho-capitalist writings.
As anarcho-capitalism puts laissez-faire economics before economic equality, it is commonly viewed as incompatible with the anti-capitalist and egalitarian tradition of anarchism. Although anarcho-capitalist theory implies the abolition of the state in favour of a fully laissez-faire economy, it lies outside the tradition of anarchism. While using the language of anarchism, anarcho-capitalism only shares anarchism's antipathy towards the state and not anarchism's antipathy towards hierarchy as theorists expect from anarcho-capitalist economic power relations. It follows a different paradigm from anarchism and has a fundamentally different approach and goals. In spite of the anarcho- in its title, anarcho-capitalism is more closely affiliated with capitalism and right-libertarianism than with anarchism. Some within this laissez-faire tradition reject the designation of anarcho-capitalism, believing that capitalism may either refer to the laissez-faire market they support or the government-regulated system that they oppose.
To differentiate it from individualist anarchism, anarchists prefer using social anarchism to characterize certain strides of anarchism from individualist anarchism. The former focuses on the social aspect and is more working class and mass organisational-oriented, supporting decentralisedeconomic planning. The latter focuses on the individual, is more anti-organisational and supports either free-market forms of socialism or other anarchist economics. Nonetheless, anarchists do not seeing the two categories as mutually exclusive or as representing socialist and capitalist views within anarchism. This led to anarchism without adjectives.Mutualism is seen as the middle or third category between social anarchism and individualist anarchism, although it is often considered part of social anarchism and sometimes part of individualist anarchism.Pierre-Joseph Proudhon spoke of social individualism and described the mutualism and the freedom it pursued as the synthesis between communism and property.
While some anarcho-capitalists theorists and scholars divide anarchism into individualist anarchism and social anarchism as representing capitalist and socialist viewpoints, anarchist theorists and scholars reject this. Anarchists do not see this as a struggle between socialism and capitalism, or as social anarchism and individualist anarchism as being mutually exclusive, but rather as complementary. Their differences comes from the means to attain anarchy rather than on their ends. Against some anarcho-capitalist theorists and scholars who see individualist anarchism as pro-capitalist, anarchists reiterate that anarchism is socialist, meaning anti-statist and libertariansocialism. Anarchists such as Luigi Galleani and Errico Malatesta have seen no contradiction between individualist anarchism and social anarchism, with the latter especially seeing the issues not between the two forms of anarchism, but between anarchists and non-anarchists. Anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker argued that it was "not Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism". The view of an individualist–socialist divide is contested as individualist anarchism is socialistic.
Despite their differences, anarchist schools of thought are forms of libertarian socialism. Anarchists may see those categorisation in materialist terms. From a materialist perspective, individualist anarchism represents the anarchist form in the pre-capitalist and largely agrarian merchantilist capitalism before the Industrial Revolution, during which individualist anarchism became a form of artisanal and self-employed socialism, especially in the United States. Social anarchism represents the anarchism in an industrial society, being the form of industrial or proletarian socialism, with post-left anarchy and its criticism of industrial technology and anti-workerism arising in a post-industrial society.
Murray Rothbard, who coined the term anarcho-capitalism and advocated such philosophy, argued that the robber baron period, hailed by the right and despised by the left as a heyday of laissez-faire, was not characterized by laissez-faire at all, but it was in fact a time of massive state privilege accorded to capital. The doyen of modern American market-oriented libertarianism and an Austrian School economist, Rothbard was initially an enthusiastic partisan of the Old Right, particularly because of its general opposition to war and imperialism. However, Rothbard had long embraced a reading of American history that emphasized the role of elite privilege in shaping legal and political institutions—one that was naturally agreeable to many on the left—and came increasingly in the 1960s to seek alliances on the left and especially with members of the New Left in light of the Vietnam War, the military draft and the emergence of the Black Power movement. Working with other radicals like Ronald Radosh and Karl Hess, Rothbard argued that the consensus view of American economic history, according to which a beneficent government has used its power to counter corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. Rather, he argued that government intervention in the economy has largely benefited established players at the expense of marginalized groups, to the detriment of both liberty and equality. In tandem with his emphasis on the intimate connection between state and corporate power, he defended the seizure of corporations dependent on state largesse by workers and others. Rothbard ultimately broke with the left, allying himself instead with the burgeoning paleoconservative movement.
Some left-Rothbardians are mutualists whereas other left-Rothbardians and market-oriented left-libertarians have declined to embrace mutualist views of real property while sharing the mutualist opposition to corporate hierarchies and wealth concentration. Those left-libertarians have placed particular emphasis on the articulation and defense of a libertarian theory of class and class conflict, although considerable work in this area has been performed by libertarians of other persuasions. Those left-Rothbardians and libertarians maintain that because of its heritage and its emancipatory goals and potential radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists like anarcho-capitalists can and should call themselves socialists, echoing the language of libertarian socialists like American individualist anarchistsBenjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and British Thomas Hodgskin. Some of those left-Rothbardians have used Rothbardian arguments such as the homestead principle and a labor theory of property to support anarchist concepts such as workers' self-management.
In response to claims from anarcho-capitalists that he uses the term capitalism incorrectly, Kevin Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect what he claims to be an old definition of the term in order to "make a point". He claims that "the term 'capitalism,' as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf". Carson holds that "capitalism, arising as a new class society directly from the old class society of the Middle Ages, was founded on an act of robbery as massive as the earlier feudal conquest of the land. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its survival is unimaginable". In addition to individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker's big four monopolies (land, money, tariffs and patents), Carson argues that the state has also transferred wealth to the wealthy by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies, arguing that in a truly laissez-faire system the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible. In response to criticism from anarcho-capitalists who reject the labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value and support marginalism, the theoretical sections of Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy are presented as an attempt to integrate marginalist critiques into the labor theory of value.
Gary Chartier offers an understanding of property rights as contingent yet tightly constrained social strategies, reflective of the importance of multiple, overlapping rationales for separate ownership and of natural law principles of practical reasonableness, defending robust yet non-absolute protections for these rights in a manner similar to that employed by David Hume. This account is distinguished from anarcho-capitalists who are propertarian and hold Lockean and neo-Lockean views which deduce property rights from the idea of self-ownership and from consequentialist accounts that might license widespread ad hoc interference with the possessions of groups and individuals. Chartier uses this account to ground a clear statement of the natural law basis for the view that solidaristic wealth redistribution by individual persons is often morally required, but as a response by individuals and grass-roots networks to particular circumstances rather than as a state-driven attempt to achieve a particular distributive pattern. Chartier advances detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity which anarcho-capitalists reject, defending it instead as morally desirable and as a likely outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something to be mandated by the state. He also discusses natural law approaches to land reform and to the occupation of factories by workers which anarcho-capitalists may see as infranging on property owners' rights. Against anarcho-capitalists who support intellectual property, Chartier objects on natural law grounds to intellectual property protections, drawing on his theory of property rights more generally and developing a general natural law account of boycotts.
Left-wing market anarchism identifies with left-libertarianism whereas anarcho-capitalism is considered a form of right-libertarianism. Unlike anarcho-capitalists, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights and those who support private property do so under occupation and use property norms as in mutualism or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or even global community as advocated by geoists and geolibertarians. Arguing that vast disparities in wealth and social influence result from the use of force and especially state power to steal and engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges, members of this thought typically urge the abolition of the state. They judge that in a stateless society, the kinds of privileges secured by the state will be absent and injustices perpetrated or tolerated by the state can be rectified. According to libertarian scholar Sheldon Richman:
Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third Worldsweatshops would be the "best alternative" in the absence of government manipulation. Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics, having little confidence in strategies that work through the government. They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the state.
Unlike anarcho-captalists, left-wing market anarchism explicitly supports the labor movement and their struggles. Left-wing market anarchist Kevin Carson has praised individualist anarchistDyer Lum's fusion of individualist economics with radical labor activism as "creative" and described him as "more significant than any in the Boston group". Left-libertarian philosopher Roderick T. Long is an advocate of "build[ing] worker solidarity. On the one hand, this means formal organisation, including unionization – but I'm not talking about the prevailing model of "business unions," [...] but real unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage". In particular, Long has described the situation as follows:
[T]he present status of unions as governmentally privileged labor cartels is in large part the result of legislation supported by big business, inasmuch as the corporate elite found unions less threatening as regulated junior partners in the corporate régime, playing on its terms, than as independent actors. After all, the achievements, much heralded by the Left, which unions won in their heyday, such as the weekend and the eight-hour day, were won primarily by market means, often over strong government resistance; likewise, the most notable victories of unions in recent years have been won mainly by unofficial, disapproved unions, without violence of either the governmental or freelance variety, and outside of the traditional labor-law establishment. By contrast, the influence of mainstream unions has been steadily declining ever since they accepted the devil's bargain of "help" from big-daddy government, with all the regulatory strings that go with it. Thus when left-wingers complain that unions are in decline and that workers are disempowered on the job, they're complaining about a situation created and sustained by government — and once again, we should be pointing that out to them.
Contemporary left-wing market anarchists show markedly more sympathy than anarcho-capitalists towards various cultural movements which challenge non-governmental relations of power. Left-wing market anarchists such as Roderick T. Long and Charles W. Johnson have called for a recovery of the 19th-century alliance with radical liberalism and feminism. While adopting similar views, including opposition to drug prohibition, gun control, civil liberties violations and war, left-wing market anarchists are more likely than most self-identified anarcho-capitalists to take more distinctively leftist stances on issues as diverse as feminism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration and environmentalism. Especially influential regarding these topics have been scholars including Long, Johnson, Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Arthur Silber. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, left-wing market anarchism also does not have any strict agreement what constitutes legitimate property titles. Arguments have been made for Rothbardian,Georgist, mutualist and utilitarian approaches to determining legitimate property claims. Those discrepancies are resolved through deliberation mechanisms like the polycentric law. Unlike anarcho-capitalists, left-wing market anarchists recognize the importance of property held and managed in common as a way of maintaining common goods.
Left-wing market anarchists argue that capitalism necessarily rest on the state to survive and that it was always seen as what would be later termed state capitalism. Those anarchists make the point that free market for classical economists such as Adam Smith did not mean a market free from government or social interference as it is now commonly assumed or as anarcho-capitalists argue, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities, implying that economic rents, i.e. profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition. Those anarchists argue that a true free-market or laissez-faire system would be better served under socialism rather than capitalism.Anarcho-socialism or socialist anarchism are rejected by anarchists since they consider themselves socialists of the libertarian tradition and are used by anarcho-capitalist theorists and scholars who recognize anarcho-capitalism to differentiate between the two.
The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999 is generally regarded as the first of the major anti-globalization protests. Anarchists such as the WOMBLES have on occasion played a significant role in planning, organising and participating in subsequent protests. The protests tended to be organised on anarchist direct action principles with a general tolerance for a range of different activities ranging from those who engage in tactical frivolity to the black blocs.
^Kropotkin, Peter. "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal". "That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist".
^Woodcock, George. "Anarchism". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "ANARCHISM, a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man's natural social tendencies".
^Kropotkin, Peter. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. "In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions".
^Malatesta, Errico. "Towards Anarchism". Man!. Los Angeles: International Group of San Francisco. OCLC3930443.
Agrell, Siri (14 May 2007). "Working for The Man". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 16 May 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2008. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 2006. Archived from the original on 14 December 2006. Retrieved 29 August 2006. "Anarchism". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 14. 2005. Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable. The following sources cite anarchism as a political philosophy: Mclaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 59. ISBN978-0-7546-6196-2. Johnston, R. (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. p. 24. ISBN0-631-20561-6.
^Slevin, Carl (2003). McLean, Aiaun; McMillan, Allistair, eds. "Anarchism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press.
^Goldman, Emma. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy". Anarchism and Other Essays. "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations".
^Tucker, Benjamin. Individual Liberty. "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. [...] Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of the socialism off Karl Marx".
^Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it". (p. 9) "[...] Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State".
^Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.
^Heilbroner, Robert L. Capitalism. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008).
^Tormey, Simon. Anticapitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10.
^Critical Issues in History. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999, p. 1.
^Scott, John (2005). Industrialism: A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press.
^Outhwaite, William (2003). The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. "Anarchism". Blackwell Publishing. p. 13. "Their successors today, such as Murray Rothbard, having abandoned the labor theory of value, describe themselves as anarcho-capitalists".
^Wieck, David (1978). "Anarchist Justice". In Chapman, John W.; Pennock, J. Roland Pennock, eds. Anarchism: Nomos XIX. New York: New York University Press. pp. 227–228. "Out of the history of anarchist thought and action Rothbard has pulled forth a single thread, the thread of individualism, and defines that individualism in a way alien even to the spirit of a Max Stirner or a Benjamin Tucker, whose heritage I presume he would claim – to say nothing of how alien is his way to the spirit of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and the historically anonymous persons who through their thoughts and action have tried to give anarchism a living meaning. Out of this thread Rothbard manufactures one more bourgeois ideology." Retrieved 7 April 2020.
^Peacott, Joe (18 April 1985). "Reply to Wendy Mc Elroy". New Libertarian (14). June 1985. Archived 7 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 7 April 2020. "In her article on individualist anarchism in the October, 1984, New Libertarian, Wendy McElroy mistakenly claims that modern-day individualist anarchism is identical with anarchist capitalism. She ignores the fact that there are still individualist anarchists who reject capitalism as well as communism, in the tradition of Warren, Spooner, Tucker, and others. [...] Benjamin Tucker, when he spoke of his ideal "society of contract," was certainly not speaking of anything remotely resembling contemporary capitalist society. [...] I do not quarrel with McElroy's definition of herself as an individualist anarchist. However, I dislike the fact that she tries to equate the term with anarchist capitalism. This is simply not true. I am an individualist anarchist and I am opposed to capitalist economic relations, voluntary or otherwise."
^Baker, J. W. "Native American Anarchism". The Raven. 10 (1): 43‒62. "It is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians, whose claims on Tucker and the others can be made only by ignoring the violent opposition they had to capitalist exploitation and monopolistic 'free enterprise' supported by the state." Retrieved 7 April 2020.
^ abcdeMarshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Oakland, California: PM Press. p. 565. ISBN978-1-60486-064-1.: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."; Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (41). "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders. [...] [S]o what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."; Meltzer, Albert (1 January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against. AK Press. p. 50. ISBN978-1-873176-57-3. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."; Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. p. 4. ISBN978-1-84631-025-6.: "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."; Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN978-0-7486-3495-8.: "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".
Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Chapter "Government". Dutton Adult.
Doyle, Kevin (2002). Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 447–448.
Sheehan, Seán M. (2003). Anarchism Reaktion Books. p. 17.
Kelsen, Hans (1988). The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 110.
Tellegen, Egbert; Wolsink, Maarten (1998). Society and Its Environment: an introduction. Routledge. p. 64.
Jones, James (2004). The Merry Month of May. Akashic Books. pp. 37–38.
Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart (2004). Political Theorists in Context. Routledge. p. 238.
Bookchin, Murray (2004). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press. p. 37.
Berkman, Alexander (2005). Life of an Anarchist. Seven Stories Press. p. 268.
^ abMartin, James J. (1953). Men Against the State: the State the Expositors of Individualist Anarchism. Dekalb, Illinois: The Adrian Allen Associates.
^ abTucker, Benjamin (1970). Liberty. Greenwood Reprint Corporation. 7–8. p. 26. "Liberty has always insisted that Individualism and Socialism are not antithetical terms; that, on the contrary, the most ... not of Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism."
^ abcMcKay, Iain, ed. (2012). "Section G – Is Individualist Anarchism Capitalistic?". An Anarchist FAQ. Vol. II. Stirling: AK Press. ISBN9781849351225.
^ abcCarson, Kevin (2017). "Anarchism and Markets". In Jun, Nathan J. (2017). Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy. BRILL. p. 81. ISBN9789004356894.
^Kropotkin, Peter. Revolutionary Pamphlets. p. 179.
^ abcBerkman, Alexander (1929). The ABC of Anarchism. p. 25.
^"Citizens' Money", an 1890 lecture on the national banking system delivered in Chicago and published in Liberty of Boston in 1888. San Francisco: Equity Publishing.
^"Citizens' Money, a critical analysis in the light of free trade in banking delivered by Alfred B. Westrup in Chicago, Sunday, 3 June 1888 and in Toledo, Ohio under the auspices of the Society for Economic Inquiry on 19 February 1891. Chicago: Mutual Bank Propaganda. Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ abRocker, Rudolf (1938). Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. An Introduction to a Subject Which the Spanish War Has Brought into Overwhelming Prominence. Secker and Warburg. p. 11. [...] as long as within society a possessing and non-possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity, the state will be indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection for its privileges.
^Reekie, W. Duncan (1984). Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty. pp. 136–137.
^ abSabatini, Peter (1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. 41 (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Within [Right] Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. [...] Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now." Retrieved 20 June 2020.
^Rothbard, Murray (1974). Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. p. 4.
^Rothbard, Murray (1974). Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. p. 5.
^Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1840). What is Property?. p. 118.
^Chomsky, Noam (1987). The Chomsky Reader. p. 190.
^Maximov, G. P., ed. (1953). The Political Philosophy of Bakunin. New York: The Free Press. p. 269.
^Tormey, Simon (2004). Anti-capitalism: A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld. p. 10. ISBN9781851683420.
^McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing. p. 48. ISBN9781138276147. Thus, as David Miller puts it, capitalism is regarded by anarchists as 'both coercive [...] and exploitative – it places workers in the power of their bosses, and fails to give them a just return for their contribution to production' [...].
^Cudworth, Erika; Nocella, Anthony J. II; White, Richard J. (2015). Anarchism and Animal Liberation: Essays on Complementary Elements of Total Liberation. McFarland & Co. ISBN9780786494576. Anarchism is a socio-political theory which opposes all systems of domination and oppression such as racism, ableism, sexism, anti-LGBTTQIA, ageism, sizeism, government, competition, capitalism, colonialism, imperialism and punitive justice, and promotes direct democracy, collaboration, interdependence, mutual aid, diversity, peace, transformative justice and equity
^Fiala, Andrew (3 October 2017). "Anarchism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
^Cheyney, Ryan C. (November 1980). "Social Justice and the Right to the Labor Product". Political Theory (8: 4). p. 506.
^Leeseon, Robert (2017). Hayek: A Collaborative Biography, Part IX: The Divine Right of the 'Free' Market. Springer. p. 180. ISBN9783319607085. To the original 'anarchocapitalist' (Rothbard cointed the term) [...].
^Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (1987). p. 290. ISBN978-0-631-17944-3. "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker".
^Tame, Chris R. (October 1983). The Chicago School: Lessons from the Thirties for the Eighties. Economic Affairs. p. 56.
^Black, Bob (1992). "The Libertarian As Conservative". In The Abolition of Work and Other Essays. p. 144. "To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else. [...] Both camps call for partial or complete privatization of state functions but neither questions the functions themselves. They don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it."
^ abMorris, Brian (2006). "Global Anti-Capitalism". Anarchist Studies. 14 (2): 170–176. "[Anarcho-capitalists] simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood."
^Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (41). "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders. [...] [S]o what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud".
^Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
^Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists".
^Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. ISBN0748634959. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)".
^Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press. p. 6.
^Morris, Brian, Anthropology and Anarchism, "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed" (no. 45); Mckay, Iain, The legacy of Voltairine De Cleyre, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 44; Brown, L. Susan, The Politics of Individualism.
^Brown, Susan Love; Garrier, James G. ed. (1997). The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Oxford: Berg. p. 104, p. 107.
^Madison, Charles A. (1945). "Anarchism in the United States". Journal of the History of Ideas. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 6, No. 1. 6 (1): 46–66. doi:10.2307/2707055. JSTOR2707055.
^Madison, Charles A. (1943). "Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and Anarchist". New England Quarterly. 16 (3): 444–467. doi:10.2307/361029. JSTOR361029.
^Anti-capitalist market anarchists support private possession along Warren's, Proudhon's, or similar lines. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists support private property along Lockean or similar lines.
^As Peter Marshall notes in his history of anarchism (Demanding the Impossible), "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice". p. 565.
^Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, "Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, Libertarian as Conservative
^1) Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7. 2) Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231.
^Carson, Kevin A. (2008). Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective. Charleston, SC:BookSurge.
^Carson, Kevin A. (2010). The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
^Long, Roderick T. (2000). Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. Washington, DC:Objectivist Center
^ abGillis, William (2011). "The Freed Market." In Chartier, Gary and Johnson, Charles. Markets Not Capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 19–20.
^Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY:Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 1–16.
^Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson (eds). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions; 1st edition (November 5, 2011
^Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. ISBN9780006862451. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practicing voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."
^McLaughlin, Paul (2007). "Defining Anarchism". Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate. p. 166. ISBN978-0-7546-6196-2. "[Opposition to the state] is (contrary to what many scholars believe) not definitive of anarchism".
^Jun, Nathan (September 2009). "Anarchist Philosophy and Working Class Struggle: A Brief History and Commentary". WorkingUSA. 12 (3): 505–519. doi:10.1111/j.1743-4580.2009.00251.x. ISSN1089-7011. "One common misconception, which has been rehearsed repeatedly by the few Anglo-American philosophers who have bothered to broach the topic [...] is that anarchism can be defined solely in terms of opposition to states and governments" (p. 507).
^Franks, Benjamin (August 2013). Freeden, Michael; Stears, Marc (eds.). "Anarchism". The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford University Press: 385–404. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0001. "[...] many, questionably, regard anti-statism as the irremovable, universal principle at the core of anarchism. [...] The fact that [socialist and individualist anarchisms] share a core concept of 'anti-statism', which is often advanced as [...] a commonality between them [...], is insufficient to produce a shared identity [...] because [they interpret] the concept of state-rejection [...] differently despite the initial similarity in nomenclature" (pp. 386–388).
^Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: HarperCollins. p. 641. ISBN978-0-00-217855-6. "For a long time, libertarian was interchangeable in France with anarchist but in recent years, its meaning has become more ambivalent."
^Cohn, Jesse (20 April 2009). "Anarchism". In Ness, Immanuel (ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–11. doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0039. ISBN978-1-4051-9807-3. "[...] 'libertarianism' [...] a term that, until the mid-twentieth century, was synonymous with 'anarchism' per se" (p. 6).
^Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: HarperCollins. pp. 564–565. ISBN978-0-00-217855-6. "Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. [...] They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. [...] As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the state, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."
^Jennings, Jeremy (1993). "Anarchism". In Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (eds.). Contemporary Political Ideologies. London: Pinter. pp. 127–146. ISBN978-0-86187-096-7. "[...] anarchism does not stand for the untrammelled freedom of the individual (as the 'anarcho-capitalists' appear to believe) but, as we have already seen, for the extension of individuality and community" (p. 143).
^Gay, Kathlyn; Gay, Martin (1999). Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. ABC-CLIO. p. 15. ISBN978-0-87436-982-3. "For many anarchists (of whatever persuasion), anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory term, since 'traditional' anarchists oppose capitalism".
^Morriss, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13–14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN978-1-4129-6580-4. OCLC191924853. "Social anarchists, those anarchists with communitarian leanings, are critical of anarcho-capitalism because it permits individuals to accumulate substantial power through markets and private property."
^Franks, Benjamin (August 2013). Freeden, Michael; Stears, Marc (eds.). "Anarchism". The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford University Press: 385–404. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0001. pp. 393–394: "Individualisms that defend or reinforce hierarchical forms such as the economic-power relations of anarcho-capitalism [...] are incompatible with practices of social anarchism. [...] Increasingly, academic analysis has followed activist currents in rejecting the view that anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with social anarchism" (pp. 393–394).
^Long, Roderick T.; Machan, Tibor R., eds. (2008). Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?. Ashgate. p. vii. ISBN978-0-7546-6066-8.
^Iverson, Stan. (1968). "Sex and Anarcho-socialism". Sex Marchers. p. 57. "Libertarian Socialism, or if you please, anarcho-socialism [...]".
^Walford, George (1979). Ideologies and Their Functions: A Study in Systematic Ideology. pp. 139–145.
^McNally, David (1993). "'Proudhon did Enormous Mischief': Marx's Critique of the First Market Socialists". Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and the Marxist Critique. Verso.
^Sturgis, Amy H. (2003). Presidents from Hayes Through McKinley: Debating the Issues in Pro and Con Primary Documents. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 106. "Composed of many differing strains of thought (such as mutualism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-socialism, and anarcho-communism), anarchism revolves around the concept of noncoercion and the belief that force is illegitimate and unethical".
^ abBusky, Donald F. (1 January 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2. ISBN9780275968861. The same may be said of anarchism: social anarchism—a nonstate form of socialism—may be distinguished from the nonsocialist, and, in some cases, procapitalist school of individualist anarchism.
^ abOstergaard, Geoffrey (2008). "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.
^ abThagard, Paul. 2002. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press. p. 153.
^Heider, Ulrike (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right and Green. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
^Guerin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. Monthly Review Press. p. 12, 35. "[A]narchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. [...] The anarchists were unanimous in subjecting authoritarian socialism to a barrage of severe criticism. At the time when they made violent and satirical attacks these were not entirely well founded, for those to whom they were addressed were either primitive or "vulgar" communists, whose thought had not yet been fertilized by Marxist humanism, or else, in the case of Marx and Engels themselves, were not as set on authority and state control as the anarchists made out."
^Chomsky, Noam (2005). Pateman, Barry (ed.). Chomsky on Anarchism. Oakland, California: AK Press. ISBN978-1-904859-26-0. p. 123. "Modern anarchism is "the libertarian wing of socialism".
^Cohn, Jesse (April 20, 2009). "Anarchism". In Ness, Immanuel (ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 1–11. doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0039. ISBN978-1-4051-9807-3. "[...] from the 1890s on, the term 'libertarian socialism' has entered common use as a synonym for anarchism" (p. 4).
^Levy, Carl; Adams, Matthew S., eds. (2018). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 104. ISBN978-3-319-75619-6. "As such, many people use the term 'anarchism' to describe the anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement."
^Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. xi. ISBN978-1-56000-132-4.
^Kahn, Joseph (2000). "Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement". The New York Times (5 August 2000).
^Moynihan, Colin (2007). "Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway". The New York Times (16 April 2007).
^Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: HarperCollins. p. 641. ISBN978-0-00-217855-6.
^Boyd, Tony; Harrison, Kevin, eds. (2003). "Marxism and Anarchism". Understanding Political Ideas and Movements. Manchester University Press. p. 251. ISBN9780719061516.
^Esenwein, George Richard (1989). Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898. p. 135. "Anarchism without adjectives referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, [...] [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools".
^Knowles, Rob (Winter 2000). "Political Economy From Below: Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected Discourse in Histories of Economic Thought". History of Economics Review. 31 (31): 30–47. doi:10.1080/10370196.2000.11733332. S2CID141027974.
^Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own". Mother Earth (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; Novatore, Renzo (1924). "Towards the Creative Nothing"; Gray, Christopher (1974). Leaving the Twentieth Century. p. 88; Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason". "[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity".
^Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy". "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; Truda, Dielo (1926). "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists". "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; "My Perspectives". Willful Disobedience (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; Brown, L. Susan (2002). The Politics of Individualism. Black Rose Books; Brown, L. Susan (2 February 2011). "Does Work Really Work?".
^Morriss, Brian (1993). Bakukunin: The Philosophy of Freedom. Black Rose Books Ltd. p. 115.
^Ellman, Michael (2007). "The Rise and Fall of Socialist Planning". In Estrin, Saul; Kołodko, Grzegorz W.; Uvalić, Milica (eds.). Transition and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Mario Nuti. New York City: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 22. ISBN978-0-230-54697-4. In the USSR in the late 1980s the system was normally referred to as the 'administrative-command' economy. What was fundamental to this system was not the plan but the role of administrative hierarchies at all levels of decision making; the absence of control over decision making by the population [...].
^Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. 75.
^Paul, Ellen Frankel. Miller, Fred Dycus. Paul, Jeffrey. 1993. (no title listed) Cambridge University Press. p. 115.
^Chomsky, Noam (2003). Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 398. Chomsky, Noam. Language and Politics. AK Press. p. 153.
^Peacock, Adrian. 1999. Two Hundred Pharaohs, Five Billion Slaves. Ellipsis London.
^Goodwin, Barbara (2007). Using Political Ideas. John Wiley & Sons.
^Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY:Minor Compositions/Autonomedia
^"It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism." Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. p. back cover.
^"But there has always been a market-oriented strand of libertarian socialism that emphasizes voluntary cooperation between producers. And markets, properly understood, have always been about cooperation. As a commenter at Reason magazine's Hit&Run blog, remarking on Jesse Walker's link to the Kelly article, put it: "every trade is a cooperative act." In fact, it's a fairly common observation among market anarchists that genuinely free markets have the most legitimate claim to the label “socialism.”" "Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated" by Kevin Carson at website of Center for a Stateless Society.
^See Brian M. Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (New York: Public Affairs 2007) 338.
^See Murray N. Rothbard and Ronald Radosh, eds., A New History of Leviathan: Essays on the Rise of the American Corporate State (New York: Dutton 1972).
^Cp. Karl Hess, Dear America (New York: Morrow 1975).
^On partnerships between the state and big business and the role of big business in promoting regulation, see Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (New York: Free 1977); Butler Shaffer, In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign against Competition, 1918–1938 (Auburn, AL: Mises 2008).
^Rothbard, Murray N. (15 June 1969). "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle." Libertarian Forum. 1:6. pp. 3–4.
^Sheldon Richman, "Class Struggle Rightly Conceived," The Goal Is Freedom (Foundation for Economic Education, July 13, 2007); Nock, Our Enemy, the State; Franz Oppenheimer, The State (San Francisco: Fox 1997); Tom G. Palmer, "Classical Liberalism, Marxism, and the Conflict of Classes: The Classical Liberal Theory of Class Conflict," Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice (Washington: Cato 2009) 255-76; Wally Conger, Agorist Class Theory: A Left Libertarian Approach to Class Conflict AnalysisArchived April 27, 2022, at the Wayback Machine (Agorism.eu.org, n.d.); Kevin A. Carson, "Another Free-for-All: Libertarian Class Analysis, Organized Labor, Etc.," Mutualist Blog: Free-Market Anti-Capitalism (n.p., Jan. 26, 2006); Walter E. Grinder and John Hagel, "Toward a Theory of State Capitalism: Ultimate Decision Making and Class Structure," Journal of Libertarian Studies 1.1 (1977): 59–79; David M. Hart, "The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer" (PhD diss., U of Cambridge, 1994); Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis," Journal of Libertarian Studies 9.2 (1990): 79–93; Roderick T. Long, "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15.2 (Sum. 1998): 303–49.
^Carson, Kevin (28 September 2012). "The Left-Rothbardians, Part I: Rothbard". Center for a Stateless Society. "What most people ordinarily identify as the stereotypical "libertarian" privatization proposal, unfortunately, goes something like this: sell it to a giant corporation on terms that are most advantageous to the corporation. Rothbard proposed, instead, was to treat state property as unowned, and allowing it to be homesteaded by those actually occupying it and mixing their labor with it. This would mean transforming government utilities, schools and other services into consumer cooperatives and placing them under the direct control of their present clientele. It would mean handing over state industry to workers' syndicates and transforming it into worker-owned cooperatives". Retrieved 10 January 2020.
^Carson, Kevin A. Carson's Rejoinders. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 20, No. 1 (Winter 2006): 97–136, pp. 116, 117.
^Bottomore, Thomas B. (1964). Elites and Society p. 54.
^Gouldner, A. W. (November 1982). "Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and the First International". Theory and Society. (11: 6). pp. 853–884. Gouldner argues that Bakunin formulated an original critique of Marxism as "the ideology, not of the working class, but of a new class of scientific intelligentsia—who would corrupt socialism, make themselves a new elite, and impose their rule on the majority" (pp. 860–861).
^"L'Angleterre a-t-elle l'heureux privilège de n'avoir ni Agioteurs, ni Banquiers, ni Faiseurs de services, ni Capitalistes ?". In Clavier, Étienne (1788). De la foi publique envers les créanciers de l'état : lettres à M. Linguet sur le n° CXVI de ses annales (in French). p. 19.
^Braudel, Fernand (1979). The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization and Capitalism 15th–18th Century. Harper and Row.
^Hodgson, Geoffrey (2015). Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future. University of Chicago Press. p. 252.