|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllCapitalism and SocialismWritten by Darrell Anderson. Reading books about political theory reveals two general classes of anarchists: anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists (for brevity, hereinafter called ansocs and ancaps). These are not the only two classes of anarchist theory, only the two I want to discuss here. Obviously what they both have in common is anarchy — the absence of rulers. Both camps of people believe that no human has standing to rule other humans. Anarcho-capitalism often is pitted as an opposite philosophy to anarcho-socialism. The opposite of anarcho-socialism probably more correctly would be anarcho-individualism. However, generally, anarcho-capitalism is pitted against anarcho-socialism because ancaps believe in the concept of private property. Some ansocs do too, but reject how title to property is obtained in today’s world. Generally, ansocs use the word possessions to describe what ancaps call property. Generally, when ansocs hear the phrase private property they think monopoly, privilege, and exclusion. Generally, ansocs do not think in terms of property but usufruct. Usufruct is a concept of possessing rights or standing to use and enjoy certain resources without necessarily possessing title to those resources. Usufruct is commonly observed in families, where children are granted access to use and enjoy much of the resources possessed and titled in their parents’ name. Regardless, many ansocs declare that the words anarchy and capitalism are diametrically opposed, thereby rendering the term anarcho-capitalist to be an oxymoron. Similarly, many ancaps say the same about anarcho-socialism. Ancaps declare the words anarchy and capitalism are redundant and ansocs declare the same about the words anarchy and socialism. One reason for this confusion is ancient: a failing by either side to establish definitions that both sides agree upon. Both phrases are redundant or oxymorons, depending upon the starting perspectives and definitions. Both sides use their own definitions to control their arguments and philosophies. Therefore, both sides tend to argue and debate endlessly. Rather than focus on the obvious common ground of ridding the world of illegitimate rule (anarchy), both sides instead tend to focus on their differences. Some time ago, after realizing I was an anarchist I went a while before asking myself to address what kind of anarchist. Initially, because I believe in voluntary relationships, I merely assumed I was an anarcho-capitalist. Then I realized that I had not defined the word capitalism. What is capitalism? Like the word anarchy, I do not use the popular version of the word. The popular version of anarchy means chaos and disorder, but I reject that definition. Anarchy merely means without rulers. Capital is a form of wealth devoted to further producing wealth. Capital is a feedback mechanism from the distribution of wealth back into production. Wealth is anything tangible derived from labor that satisfies individual happiness. Therefore, a straightforward definition is capitalism is an economic process of converting capital into wealth. Some economists define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production. However, notice my definition. My definition does not describe any form of ownership, but only describes a process. Socialists should be just as comfortable with my definition as capitalists. People in a social commune use assets and labor to produce wealth just as do “capitalists.” A primary difference is that capitalists prefer to see all assets as privately owned and socialists prefer many large assets to be communally owned. I do not use the word capitalism to imply any political process of exploitation — that would be the popular version of the word. Unfortunately, the word capitalism is used today more as a political expression, and justifiably garners much discontent because the machinations of statism are used to coercively create avenues of monopoly, privilege, and profit. That distortion is acutely apparent in the politically-granted and controlled monopoly of currency and credit, as well as the flawed idea of granting corporate charters to create fictional entities that possess standing under the color of law. Numerous special legislative exemptions and privileges exasperate these issues. The problem is not the economic process of capitalism — the desire to improve the quality of life, a natural human phenomenon — but the forced interference of politicians to cloud the operations of free association and voluntary exchange. In other words, the problem is the politicization of capitalism. When used as a purely economic term, the term capitalism is compatible with the idea of free association and voluntary exchange. When used in a political sense, capitalists oppose free association and voluntary exchanges. Political capitalism is a regulated environment allowing for private ownership of resources but benefiting a few people at the expense of all others — fascism. Fascism supports private ownership but encourages centralized control — regulation. Fascism lends well to creating and establishing monopolies and privilege. There is a thin line separating economic capitalism from political capitalism. By definition economic capitalism is merely a process of producing wealth; that is, improving the quality of life. Of itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with that process or desire. However, there is a limit to how much wealth any individual can create, and arguably, how much any individual can use. More importantly perhaps, is there is a limit to how much wealth any individual can consume. When an individual desires to exceed natural limits, then wealth building transforms into a game, from a natural process of improving life to an obsession. When that happens an individual crosses the line from economic capitalism to political capitalism and begins a process of being willing to usurp the property rights of other people. That can be accomplished directly through stealing, or indirectly through the forces of political power. However, the same can be said of the word socialism. Socialism as a philosophy merely means voluntary joint ownership. Pure socialism supports communal ownership of some forms of resources. Of course, in practice socialism has been politicized as much as capitalism. Just as in the political world capitalism today prevents voluntary free exchange, political socialism violates voluntary association by forcing collective ownership. Both political systems tend to force all people into permanent labor — slavery. All political systems violate the fundamental principle that all people are creatures of free will. Voluntary reciprocating actions protect self-interest. Political socialism and capitalism (and fascism and democracy) are identified by greed. Thus, because of those distorted definitions I refuse to use either the anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-socialist terms to describe myself. I reject both of the politicized definitions of capitalism and socialism. I believe in the concept of property, beginning with the property of each individual’s body. I do not believe that any individual has any right or standing to usurp the property rights of other people. The politicized versions of capitalism and socialism both usurp property rights. I believe in free association, and voluntary mutually beneficial exchange. I reject the initiation of force and coercion. I believe in self-defense, but not in initiating violence against others, including using political processes. I am not political but apolitical. I am an anarchist. I am not a socialist or a capitalist. I am not a collectivist. I am not a unionist (syndicalist). I am not interested in violently convincing other people to change. I am not interested in using violence to dismantle statism. I am an individual who accepts responsibility for my actions. I am not interested in using political processes to benefit me at the expense of others. I believe in persuasion and voluntary cooperation. I believe in the simple principle of not trespassing (directly or indirectly through political processes). If a group of people desire to voluntarily form an anarchist community with no private ownership of major resources, then power to them. If a group of people wish to form a fully voluntary exchange anarchist community with all rights to property, then power to them. Of course, neither group of people may force or coerce the other group to change. The moment either group chooses to use violence or political processes to enforce change, then they have become political statists, are no longer anarchists, and have violated the fundamental universal rule of not trespassing. Using force and coercion automatically implies becoming an “archy.” Both ansocs and ancaps reject one human ruling another and the initiative use of violence. Because both philosophies are voluntary and respect free will, people can enter or leave those social systems with impunity. I see no reason why the world cannot support both types of anarchy. I wish anarchists who support free association and voluntary exchange would stop using the words capitalist and capitalism. A learned individual understands the true definitions, but the masses do not. The masses have grown to understand the words to be co-equal with Corporate America, slave labor, monopoly, and privilege. That’s just the observable facts, and there is basis for disgruntlement and discontent with those words. Or, if advocates of free association and voluntary exchange insist upon using those words, I wish they would qualify the words in their economic sense, not the warped modern political sense. Sadly, like the words anarchy and liberalism, modern statists have distorted the original and more straightforward meanings. Therefore, I think people would do better to qualify what they mean when they use those words. Similarly, I wish people who support voluntary communal living would stop using the word socialist and socialism. Like the words capitalist and capitalism, the meaning of those words have been distorted beyond recognition and now contain too much emotion. Frankly, I am in favor of seeing either social system succeeding as long as statism disappears and all people remain free to choose their associations. The true problem is not capitalism, socialism, syndicalism, individualism; or even private ownership of resources or the means of production. The problem is statism, a philosophical mechanism through which people distort self-interests at the expense of others by creating monopolies and privilege. In summary, although I reject the idea that any corporate executive is “worth” $10 million, do not call me a socialist. Although I believe in free association and voluntary exchange, do not call me a capitalist. I am an anarchist. I am a voluntaryist. Finis. |
||