-Caveat Lector-
Another term for the two kinds of Anarchism:
"right-Libertarian" (anarcho-capitalist) and
"libertarian socialist" (anarcho-syndicalist)
from:
An Anarchist FAQ Webpage, Version 6.1
G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist?
<http://au.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secG7.html>
Murray Rothbard and others on the "libertarian" right have argued that
Lysander Spooner is another individualist anarchist whose ideas support
"anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be part of the anarchist tradition. As will
be shown below, however, this claim is untrue, since it is clear that
Spooner was a left libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism.
That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage
labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who
work it. Like Ben Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated
producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and cooperating workers --
rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his Letter to
Cleveland Spooner writes: "All the great establishments, of every kind, now
in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage
laborers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital
and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for
another."
This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which
capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and cooperating
workers puts Spooner squarely in the anti-capitalist camp with other
individualist anarchists, like Tucker.
Right "libertarians" have perhaps mistaken Spooner for a capitalist because
of his claim that a "free market in credit" would lead to low interest on
loans. But, as noted, markets are not the defining feature of capitalism.
There were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact that Spooner
retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him a capitalist.
In fact, far from seeing his "free market in credit" in capitalist terms,
he believed (again like Tucker) that competition between mutual banks would
make credit cheap and easily available, and that this would lead to the
elimination of capitalism! In this respect, both Spooner and Tucker follow
Proudhon, who maintained that "reduction of interest rates to vanishing
point is itself a revolutionary act, because it is destructive of
capitalism" [cited in Edward Hyams, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: His
Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works, Taplinger,1979]. (Whether this belief
is correct is, of course, another question; we have suggested that it is
not, and that capitalism cannot be "reformed away" by mutual banking,
particularly by competitive mutual banking.)
Further evidence of Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book
Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure, where he notes that under
capitalism the labourer does not receive "all the fruits of his own labour"
because the capitalist lives off of workers' "honest industry." Thus:
". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other
men than those who realize them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and
labor from others." Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers "all
the fruits" (i.e. the full value) of their labor presupposes the labour
theory of value, which is the basis of the socialist demonstration that
capitalism is exploitative. [1]
Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that
Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian. Of course, most anarchists do not
find theories of "natural law," be they due to right-Libertarians, fascists
or whatever, to be particularly compelling. Certainly the ideas of "Natural
Law" and "Natural Rights," as existing independently of human beings in the
sense of the ideal Platonic Forms, are difficult for anarchists to accept
per se, because such ideas are inherently authoritarian. [2]
Spooner, however, never explicitly states in his essay in what sense he
believes "natural law" to exist. Seeking to give him the benefit of the
doubt, we can say that his support for juries indicates a support for the
evolution of any concepts of "natural rights." In other words, the concepts
of right and wrong in society are not indelibly inscribed in law tomes as
the "true law," but instead change and develop as society does (as
reflected in the decisions of the juries). In addition, he states that
"Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter,
. . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and
justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception,"
thus indicating that what is right and wrong exists in "ordinary people"
and not in "prosperous judges" or any other small group claiming to speak
on behalf of "truth."
As can be seen, Spooner's account of how "natural law" will be administered
is radically different from, say, Murray Rothbard's, and indicates a strong
egalitarian context foreign to right-libertarianism.
As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, one wonders how Spooner would regard
the "anarcho"-capitalist "protection firm," given his comment in No Treason
that "[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can
establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire
soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general
obedience to their will." Compare this is Spooner's description of his
voluntary justice associations: "it is evidently desirable that men should
associate, so far as they freely and voluntarily can do so, for the
maintenance of justice among themselves, and for mutual protection against
other wrong-doers. It is also in the highest degree desirable that they
should agree upon some plan or system of judicial proceedings". [3]
At first glance, one may be tempted to interpret Spooner's justice
organizations as a subscription to "anarcho"-capitalist style protection
firms. A more careful reading suggests that Spooner's actual conception is
more based on the concept of mutual aid, whereby people provide such
services for themselves and for others rather than buying them on a
fee-per-service basis. A very different concept.
This comment is particularly important when we consider Spooner's
criticisms of finance capitalists, like the Rothschilds. Here he departs
even more strikingly from all "Libertarian" positions. For he believes that
sheer wealth has intrinsic power, even to the extent of allowing the
wealthy to coerce the government into behaving at their behest. For
Spooner, governments are "the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious,
fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom
they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like
the Rothschilds, [can]. . .unmake them [governments]. . .the moment they
refuse to commit any crime" that finance capital requires of them. [4]
If one grants that highly concentrated wealth has instrinsic power and may
be used in such a Machiavellian manner as Spooner claims, then simple
opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theory
claiming to promote liberty should also seek to limit or abolish the
institutions that facilitate large concentrations of wealth. As shown
above, Spooner regarded wage labour under capitalism as one of these
institutions, because without it "large fortunes could rarely be made at
all by one individual." Hence for Spooner, as for social anarchists, to be
anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist.
This can be clearly seen for his analysis of history, where he states: "Why
is it that [Natural Law] has not, ages ago, been established throughout the
world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be
compelled to obey?" Spooner's answer is given in his interpretation of how
the State evolved, where he postulates that the State was formed through
the initial ascendancy of a land-holding, slave-holding class by military
conquest and oppressive enslavement of a subsistence-farming peasantry.
"These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labor of
their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of
still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenseless
persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their
organizations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend
their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already
got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and
cooperate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.
"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call
a government, and making what they call laws. ...
"Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its
origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave
others, and hold them as property." [5]
Nothing too provocative here; simply Spooner's view of government as a tool
of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting is
Spooner's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery)
socio-economic systems. Spooner writes:
"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who
had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating
wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing
their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each
slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had
done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give
them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves)
the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them
to sell their labor to the land-holding class -- their former
owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them." [6]
Here Spooner echos the standard anarchist critique of capitalism. Note that
he is no longer talking about slavery but rather about economic relations
between a wealth-holding class and a 'freed' class of
workers/laborers/tenant farmers. Clearly he does not view this relation --
wage labor -- as a voluntary association, because the former slaves have
little option but to be employed by members of the wealth-owning class.
Spooner points out that by monopolizing the means of wealth creation while
at the same time requiring the newly ' liberated' slaves to provide for
themselves, the robber class thus continues to receive the benefits of the
labor of the former slaves while accepting none of the responsibility for
their welfare.
Spooner continues:
"Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously
called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means
of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative --
to save themselves from starvation -- but to sell their labor
to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries
of life; not always for so much even as that." [7]
Thus while technically "free," the liberated working/laboring class lack
the ability to provide for their own needs and hence remain dependent on
the wealth-owning class. This echoes not right-libertarian analysis of
capitalism, but left-libertarian and other socialist viewpoints.
"These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely
less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence
were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own
owner, who had an interest to preserve his life." [8]
This is an interesting comment. Spooner suggests that the liberated slave
class were perhaps better off as slaves. Most anarchists would not go so
far, although we would agree that employees are subject to the power of
those who employ them and so are no long self-governing individuals -- in
other words, that capitalist social relationships deny self-ownership and
freedom.
"They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders,
to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even
earning a subsistence by their labor." [9]
Lest the reader doubt that Spooner is actually discussing employment here
(and not slavery), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an
example of the arbitary nature of wage labour.
"They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity
of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous
to the property and quiet of their late masters." [10]
And thus:
"The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary,
for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize
themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping
these dangerous people in subjection. . . . " [11]
In other words, the robber class creates legislation which will protect its
power, namely its property, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the
creation of "law code" by the wealthy which serves to protect their
interests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo
illegal. This process is in effect similiar to the right-libertarian
concept of a "general libertarian law code" which exercises a monopoly over
a given area and which exists to defend the "rights" of property against
"initiation of force," i.e. attempts to change the system into a new one.
Spooner goes on:
"The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in
the hands of robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all
lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating
wealth; and thus to keep the great body of laborers in such a
state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell
their labor to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life
could be sustained." [12]
Thus Spooner identifies the underlying basis for legislation (as well as
the source of much misery, exploitation and oppression throughout history)
as the result of the monopolization of the means of wealth creation by an
elite class. We doubt he would have considered that calling these laws
"libertarian" would in any any change their oppressive and class-based
nature.
"Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to
such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies,
which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding
the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labor, and
all the profits of their labor." [13]
Characterizing employment as extortion may seem rather extreme, but it
makes sense given the exploitative nature of profit under capitalism, as
left libertarians have long recognized.[14]
In summary, as can be seen, there is a great deal of commonality between
Spooner's ideas and those of social anarchists. Spooner perceives the same
sources of exploitation and oppression inherent in monopolistic control of
the means of production by a wealth-owning class as do social anarchists.
His solutions may differ, but he observes exactly the same problems. In
other words, Spooner is a left libertarian, and his individualist anarchism
is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin, Kropotkin or
Chomsky.
This interpretation of Spooner's social and economic views is supported by
various studies in which his ideas are analyzed. As these works also give
an idea of Spooner's ideal world, they are worth quoting:
"Spooner envisioned a society of pre-industrial times in which
small property owners gathered together voluntarily and were
assured by their mutual honesty of full payment of their labour" [15].
Spooner considered that "it was necessary that every man be his own
employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another
resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer. To be one's own
employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital"
[16].
Spooner "recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he
depicts an ideal society of independent farmers and entrepreneurs who have
access to easy credit. If every person received the fruits of his own
labour, the just and equal distribution of wealth would result" [17].
It is quite apparent, then, that Spooner was against wage labour, and
therefore was no capitalist. Hence we must agree with Marshall, who
classifies Spooner as a left libertarian with ideas very close to
Proudhon's mutualism. Whether such ideas are relevent now, given the vast
amount of capital needed to start companies in established sectors of the
economy, is another question. As noted above, similar doubts may be raised
about Spooner's claims about the virtues of a free market in credit. But
one thing is clear: Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing
in the mid 1800's. He viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and
suggested a way for non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic
relationships to become the norm again in US society, a way based on
eliminating the root cause of capitalism -- wage-labour -- through a system
of easy credit, which he believed would enable artisans and peasants to
obtain their own means of production.
Spooner was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.
---
[1] (see section C)
<http://au.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secCcon.html>
[2] (as highlighted in section F.7)
<http://au.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secF7.html>
[3] Spooner, Natural Law, Section III
<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7394/naturallaw.html>
[4] Spooner, No Treason No. VI, Chapter XVIII
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07.htm>
[5] Spooner, Natural Law, Section II
<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7394/naturallaw.html>
[6] ibid., Section III
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid.
[10] ibid.
[11] ibid.
[12] ibid.
[13] ibid.
[14] (see section C)
<http://au.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secCcon.html>
[15] Corinne Jackson, The Black Flag of Anarchy, p. 87
[16] James J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 173
[17] Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 389
----
from:
Interview: "Noam Chomsky on Anarchism"
by Tom Lane, December 23, 1996
<http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html>
5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do
what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others.
Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
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.
I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement
with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole
range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in
their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality
-- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences
of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
Ouch....
See also, the Freedom Technology Resource Directory (links):
Anarchism <http://www.buildfreedom.com/ft/anarchism.htm>
Anarcho-Capitalism <http://www.buildfreedom.com/ft/anarcho-capitalism.htm>
Lysander Spooner <http://www.buildfreedom.com/ft/spooner.htm>
Noam Chomsky <http://www.buildfreedom.com/ft/chomsky.htm>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
