Taken from Austro-Athenian Empire
complete translation
Note the following lists of names:
GROUP 1
Josiah Warren Stephen Pearl Andrews
Ezra Heywood
Anselme Bellegarrigue
Lysander Spooner
Francis D. Benjamin Tucker John Henry Mackay
Tandy
Cleyre Voltairine of (first)
Franz Oppenheimer
GRUPO 2
Gustave de Molinari
Herbert Spencer (primer)
Auberon Herbert
Wordsworth
Donisthorpe
Rose Wilder Lane
Robert LeFevre
Murray Rothbard
David Friedman
Randy Barnett
Samuel E. Konkin 3.0
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Es obvio que ambas listas tienen algo en común: todos los nombres pertenecen a pensadores que apoyan radicalmente los mercados libres y la abolición del estado; por tanto, podemos inferir que todos son anarquistas de mercado .
Sin embargo, en los círculos anarco-izquierdistas se insiste en que los pensadores del Grupo 1 son anarquistas genuinos, y que los del Grupo 2 are not anarchists at all, since the true anarchist must oppose not only the state but also to capitalism. It is said that in Group 1 are clearly anti-capitalist and, consequently, real anarchists, but those in Group 2 are excluded because they defend capitalism. (I'm not sure where to put geoliberales as Albert J. Nock and Frank Chodorov, or thinkers such as Karl Hess migrants, so that I'd rather not mention)
Needless to say I'm not a fan of this supposed dichotomy between "true" and "false" market anarchists. I think this criticism in more detail in the future, for now confine myself to two general questions.
First : Those who are determined to sustain this dichotomy are hardly market themselves anarchists . They are usually the anarcho or anarcocolectivistas thinkers who believe that the two groups make unacceptable concessions to the economic individualism. (In fact often dismiss as "stirneritas" even their favorites in Group 1-with the exception of Proudhon, and that even though most of the thinkers in Group 1 developed their ideas quite apart from Max Stirner, even Tucker, clearer "stirnerita" the group, was an anarchist known market before the ideas of Stirner). When anti-market anarchists claim the right to decide who is and who is not a genuine anarchist market is a bit like Christians who claim the right to decide the dispute between Shiites and Sunnis. (I suspect that what they really wanted the anti-market is to purge both groups, but as anarchists credentials are well established Group 1 is not a practical solution.)
So instead of investigating the views of anti-market anarchists, it seems more relevant to know whether the thinkers considered Group 1 to Group 2 as fellow anarchists or not. And indeed, some 2-group luminaries as Molinari, Donisthorpe and Spencer, were first greeted as anarchists, or (in the case of Herbert Spencer) as "close to anarchy" - that in the pages of Tucker's Liberty, the main body of American individualist anarchism, which published most of the writers Group 1. (Donisthorpe, even for both Liberty wrote to the newspaper of the Liberty and Property Defence League, which was passing through an ideology supposedly impassable gulf.) Thus, the leader and spokesman for the Group 1, while certainly critical of some aspects of the thinkers in Group 2 had no trouble recognizing them as fellow anarchists. (Compare also the very strong tuckeriano contemporary attitude towards Rothbardians Kevin Carson and konkinianos).
Not that Tucker was especially generous with the term "anarchist." In contrast, Tucker refused the right to that term anarcho as Johann Most, Pyotr Kropotkin and the Haymarket martyrs, from the viewpoint of Tucker, it was they, not the Spencerian, anarchists "false." Of course, I do not follow Tucker on this particular point, a parochialism is not better than anyone else. But the fact is that the editor of Liberty, who always called his own position as "the Manchester consistent" - felt less close the anarcho-communists of his time that the precursors of the "anarcho-capitalism" (certainly the views of Tucker on radical Spencerian Molinari and are the best guide that we have about what we think today about Rothbard Tucker, Friedman, etc) , and that speaks against the simplistic division of the market anarchist socialist sheep and goats capitalists. (Indeed, the writers of Liberty quoting Spencer as much as Proudhon and, for this purpose, Karl Marx complained Proudhon that respect more like a classic liberal quasi-anarchist who was Charles Dunoyer a revolutionary communist Étienne Cabet).
Second
: So far it is unclear under what criteria have to separate the Group 1 of Group 2. Supporters insist the dichotomy that Group 1 is "anti-capitalist", while Group 2 is "pro-capitalist," but this label is not useful unless it's behind something substantive, not merely terminological. The fact that Group 1 thinkers tend to use "socialism" as a word virtuous, and "capitalism" as a nasty word, while Group 2 thinkers often do not, matters little, because, clearly, both groups do not speak the same thing when they use these words. Most thinkers in Group 2 used the word "capitalism" split talk of a free unregulated market, and use "socialism" to talk of government control, while the majority of Group 1 use those words with different meanings, but agree with Group 2 in favor of free markets and oppose government control, no matter what names used to refer to it all. As Thomas Hobbes said: "Words are wise men's counters, But They Do reckon by Them, But They Are the money of fools."
Given the many meanings of "capitalism" is very difficult support a crucial dichotomy between thinkers antistatist based solely on their attitude towards indefinite abstraction called "capitalism." We have to know what specific positions divide the Group 1 Group 2. But it is exceedingly difficult to find positions that separate the two groups in the desired manner.
Will, perhaps, its position on the labor theory of value? While this does not translate into practical differences, what difference does it make?
Or is your position on the wage system and the exploitation of labor by capital? Under this approach, the thinkers of Group 2 and Spencer, Konkin and Friedman, who support the abolition from employment, belong to Group 1, while Molinari and Donisthorpe, who propose to reform the wage system to give more power to the workers, would be somewhere in between the two groups.
Is your position on land ownership and income? Under this approach, Spencer, who rejected the whole land would be more "socialist" and Tucker and belongs to Group 1, while Spooner, who legitimized the absentee owner would be more " capitalist Tucker and then belong to Group 2.
Is your position on protection agencies and private police as quasi-governmental? Under this approach, Tucker, Tandy and Proudhon, who supported private police would be "pseudoanarquistas" Group 2, while LeFevre, who rejected all violence, even defensively, would be moved to Group 1 .
Is your position on intellectual property? Under this approach, a fan of IP as Spooner would have to be transferred to Group 2 "pro-propietarista" while the contemporary Rothbardians as enemies of the PI, would have to be accommodated in Group 1 "anti-propietarista."
Is your position on the legitimacy of interest? Well, maybe in the abstract, but both sides tend to predict a sharp drop in the price of loans as a result of free competition in the credit industry, but both deny that the decline will reach zero thinkers used to call Group 1 "cost" to the non-zero residue, while group 2 tend to call "interest"-and that's enough, hum. This seems a very fragile reed for something so heavy.
None of the criteria that usually appeal seems to support, on concrete bases, the division into two groups. I suspect that what really motivates Supporters of the dichotomy is not a specific policy, but rather the feeling that the pro-market rhetoric in group 2 is a disguise to hide the rationalization of the power relations that prevail in the corporate capitalism, which does not happen in pro-market rhetoric of Group 1-even though they also seem wrong to dichotomous. And, in turn, this perception is based, I believe, that the thinkers of Group 2 are more likely to fall into what Kevin Carson calls "vulgar libertarianism" that is, the error is to confuse defense of free markets to the defense of the current prevailing order, and not so free.
Now it is true that the Group 2 is more exposed than Group 1 fall into this unfortunate trend. However,
a) few thinkers in Group 2 make this mistake consistently,
b) some of Group 2 (VGR, Konkin, or the Rothbard-60's, or even Hess, whether it counts as part of this group) not committed at all;
c) the error of vulgar libertarian is not worse than, say, the egregious misogyny or anti-Semitism of Proudhon, that is, not a compelling reason to throw them out of the anarchist club, and
d) if to confuse the free market capitalism does not disqualify corporate anti-market anarchists (who often make the same error, but traveling in the opposite direction), why should be sufficient to disqualify the vulgar libertarians?
therefore see no sound basis to support the dichotomy between Groups 1 and 2. All are market-anarchists with different virtues and flaws, but all comrades. **********
Trad: wg
0 comments:
Post a Comment