Anarchism, what it is and what it is not, I: property

I use the labels anarchist and libertarian to describe where I stand ideologically and philosophically. In another post, I explained why anarchists must be libertarians, and why libertarians must be anarchists. However, both labels cause confusion (as labels often do). Therefore, I would like to explain what I mean, and do not mean, by describing myself as an anarchist.

There are many misunderstandings about what anarchism means, even among people who call themselves anarchists. One of these common misunderstandings is that anarchism is incompatible with private property, or property at all, since Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that "property is theft". If one accepts Proudhon as an anarchist icon, it seems hard to combine this with the defense of private property. There are, however, different opinions about what Proudhon actually meant by that statement. Some claim that Proudhon only referred to state property, and to property created through state privileges. After all, he was a mutualist.

Besides, there are anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, Murray Rothbard and David D. Friedman, who all defend a free market and private property, and consider these institutions as either necessary for a stateless society, or the logical consequence of such a society.

This is also why I consider myself a free market anarchist (or a libertarian anarchist). There are other anarchist traditions, which Per Bylund tells more about here. One of these traditions is voluntaryism, which says (obviously) that all human action should be voluntary. Although this theory, if I understand it correctly, mostly concerns collective action, the essence of voluntaryism must be that all peaceful interaction between human beings, be it intellectual, cultural, sexual or commercial, must be allowed. This means that under voluntaryism, there would be free markets, and thus, anarchism is compatible with private property, which means that I do not support throwing rocks at office buildings, or food stores.

Liberal ideologi

Bent Johan Mosfjell publicerade nyligen en artikel på Liberaleren om vad som är unikt med liberalismen, och varför liberalismen är i opposition till samtliga norska stortingspartier.

Läs mer här.

Party politics will not lead to anarchy

I have been a libertarian/market anarchist since the spring of 2001, when I was 23 years old. Back then, I was active in Moderata Ungdomsförbundet, the youth organization of Sweden's conservative party, Moderata samlingspartiet.

I then believed that anarchy could evolve from political reforms, i.e. that politicians (that is, the right politicians), would eventually make themselves unnecessary by deregulating society, selling or handing out government property into private hands, and more or less abolishing the state through a legislative act of parliament.

I was wrong. I spent eight years (1995-2003), being active in party politics. Someone might call this a waste of time. I would not go that far. Granted, trying to persuade people to vote for Moderata samlingspartiet, and trying to recruit new members was a waste of time. But my activism in youth politics also exposed me to libertarianism/anarchism and it exposed me to libertarians (both minarchists and anarchists). It gave me ideological input, and I had interesting discussions with many libertarians and others.

However, on the issue of whether anarchy can be declared by an act of parliament, I eventually realized that it is naïve to think so. That is for a simple reason. Party politics attracts people who seek power, and for those people, power goes before principles. Those active in party politics who are not power freaks are not interested in positions, and in a way, they serve as useful idiots for the power freaks (I was a useful idiot).

Political parties are, in a way, supplying opinions and politics on a market. This market is different from other markets, though, because there is a limit, which is the same as the number of seats available in the governing bodies. This means that parties will assume popular opinions, rather than challenging them. This tendency will effect all political parties who gain power. Some examples of this is the Swedish Moderata samlingspartiet, British Labour Party, Republican Party (US), and recently also the British Conservative Party.

As long as a party is a small movement, it can stand firmly by its principles. But when it gains support and thereby power, it starts to attract power freaks, and, as mentioned above, they care less for principles and more for power. If they notice that their ideas (in case they have any) are not well enough by the voters, they will modify, or change, their message in order to attract more support and gain more power.* Sweden's new prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is a master of this art.

Parliament will never give us anarchy, because the power freaks want to keep their power.

*This point was made by David D. Friedman in "Machinery of Freedom", where he predicted what now has happened to the Libertarian Party (US).

Libertarianism=Anarchism

Which are the libertarian principles? The word libertarianism comes from the the English word liberty. Principled libertarianism is usually based on the Lockean trinity of rights: the right to life, liberty and property, and many libertarians also refer to the non-aggression principle (NAP), which means that you are not allowed to initiate use of force against others. You are, however, according to the NAP, allowed to use force to defend yourself and others, and in case of restitution.

Which are the anarchist principles? The word anarchism comes from the ancient Greek words an arkos, which means "no ruler". From what I understand, the basic anarchist principles are that no force and no fraud should be allowed.

Both libertarian and anarchist principles leads to the same conclusion: the right of individuals to make agreements, based on their own free will.

The effects of this simple conclusion are not easily understood, neither by those who call themselves anarchist, nor by those who call themselves libertarians. Many anarchists fail to understand that the right to make agreements means that there will capitalistic forms of production in an anarchy, i.e. firms, bosses and employees. At the same time, many libertarians fail to see that said right means that the state is an illegal institution that must be abolished, and that without state regulations of the market, there would be more competition from small firms against bigger corporations, more competition for labor, and that that in turn would drive wages up.

The way I see it, libertarians must be anarchists, and anarchists must be libertarians.