The following article was written by Gary Chartier and published on his blog, Liberalaw, June 22nd, 2009.
I’d like to try to tie together and expand my observations re. the great “socialist”/“capitalist” terminological debate that’s been proceeding at C4SS and AAE.
I think there is good reason to use “socialism” to mean something like opposition to:
- bossism (that is to subordinative workplace hierarchy); and
- deprivation (that is, persistent, exclusionary poverty, whether resulting from state-capitalist depredation, private theft, disaster, accident, or other factors.
“Socialism” in this sense is the genus; “state-socialism” is the (much-to-be-lamented) species.
Indeed, using the “socialist” label provides the occasion for a clear distinction between the genus “socialism” and the species “state-socialism.” Thus, it offers a convenient opportunity to expose and critique the statist assumptions many people reflexively make (assumptions that make it all-too-easy for political theory to take as given the presupposition that its subject matter is the question, ‘What should the state do?’).
I am more sympathetic than perhaps I seem to the claims of those who object to linguistic arguments that they fear may have no real impact on anyone’s political judgment. I wouldn’t dismiss as silly someone who said that no market anarchist could employ “socialist” without creating inescapable confusion.
So the first thing to say, I think, is that the same is true of “capitalism.” It’s a word with a history, and the history is, very often, rather less than pretty.
Consider people on the streets of a city in Latin America, or Africa, or Asia, or Europe, chanting their opposition to neoliberalism and, yes, capitalism. I find it difficult to imagine that hordes of protesters would turn out in the streets to assail po’-lil’-ol’ private ownership. When a great many people say that “capitalism,” is the enemy, that’s surely because, among many people around the world, “capitalism” has come to mean something like “social dominance by the owners of capital,” a state of affairs many people might find unappealing.
In accordance with the kind of libertarian class analysis it’s easy to find in the work of people like Murray Rothbard, John Hagel, Butler Shaffer, and Roderick Long, Kevin Carson—author of the original C4SS article and Stephan Kinsella’s target (to Kinsella’s credit, he is not only blunt but also good-natured)—maintains that this social dominance is dependent on the activity of the state. Remove the props provided by the state, he argues, and “capitalism” in this sense—the sense in which the term is employed pejoratively by millions of people who have no ideological investment in statism or bureaucratic tyranny—is finished.
Socialist Ends, Market Means
That doesn’t mean that the market anarchist must somehow have forgotten her commitment to markets. As Kevin, Brad, Charles, and others have observed, as a historical matter there clearly have been people who have argued for the abolition of state-supported privilege and who have enthusiastically favored freed markets who have worn the label “socialist” confidently. Tucker and Hodgskin wouldn’t have agreed that socialism is synonymous with collective ownership. Rather, they would have said, various schemes for state ownership (or for collective ownership by some quasi-state entity) are ways of achieving the underlying goal of socialism—an end to bossism in the workplace, the dominance of the owners of capital in society, and to significant, widespread deprivation. But, Tucker and Hodgskin would have said, these are both unjust and ineffective means of achieving this goal—better to pursue it by freeing the market than by enhancing the power of the state.
Of course, if “socialism” means “state [or para-state] ownership of the means of production,” there is no sense in characterizing Carson or any other market anarchist as defending “clearly pro-socialist positions.” On the other hand, if “socialism” can have a sufficiently broad meaning—one compatible with market anarchism—that it makes sense to say that Kevin (or another market anarchist) does defend such positions, then it is unclear why talk of “socialism” should be objectionable.
Distinguishing Market-Oriented Socialists from State-Socialists
Carson, for one, clearly supports the existence of private ownership rights. And I have seen nothing to suggest that he would disagree with the claim that market interactions have to feature non-state ownership if they are to be voluntary. He’s consistently clear that there could, would, should be alternate kinds of property regimes in a stateless society, but none of those he considers appropriate would be rooted in coercion. So I’m puzzled by the implication that he’s an opponent of private ownership.
None of that means that one can’t point to despicable regimes (Pol Pot, anyone?) who’ve worn the “socialist” label proudly. But surely if the idea is to point to despicable applications of a term, one can do the same with “capitalism” as with “socialism”? (Think Pinochet-era Chile.) The association of “capitalism” with mercantilism and corporatism and the dominance of entrenched elites is hardly a creation of left libertarians and other market anarchists: it’s an association that’s common in the minds of many people around the world and which is thoroughly warranted by the behavior of states and of many businesses and socially powerful individuals.
Beyond Semantics
So, in short, I’m not sure that using “socialism” as the label for a particular sort of market anarchist project, or of “capitalism” for what that project opposes, has to be seen as just an exercise in semantic game-playing.
1. Emancipatory intent. For instance: labeling a particular sort of market anarchist project “socialist” clearly identifies its emancipatory intent: it links that project with the opposition to bossism and deprivation that provide the real moral and emotional force of socialist appeals of all sorts.
2. Warranted opposition to “capitalism.” Thus, identifying one’s project as “socialist” is a way of making clear one’s opposition to “capitalism”—as that term is understood by an enormous range of ordinary people around the world. The “socialist” label signals to them that a market anarchist project like Kevin’s is on their side and that it is opposed to those entities they identify as their oppressors.
3. Forcing the state-socialist to distinguish between her attachment to ends and her attachment to means. A final rationale: suppose a market anarchist like Kevin points out to the state-socialist—by sincerely owning the “socialist” label—that she or he shares the state-socialist’s ends, while disagreeing radically with the state-socialist’s judgments about appropriate means to those ends. This simultaneously sincere and rhetorically effective move allows the market anarchist to challenge the state-socialist to confront the reality that there is an inconsistency between the state-socialist’s emancipatory goals and the authoritarian means she or he professes to prefer. It sets the stage for the market anarchist to highlight the fact that purported statist responses to bossism create more, and more powerful, bosses, that the state is much better at causing deprivation than curing it.
Thus, the market anarchist’s use of “socialism” creates an occasion for the state-socialist to ask her- or himself, perhaps for the first time, “Am I really more attached to the means or to the end?” I realize that what I intend as a rhetorical question may not—if the state-socialist cares more about power than principle—elicit the intended answer. But it seems to me that, for many state-socialists, the recognition that the left-wing market anarchist sought socialist goals by non-statist means provides the state-socialist with good reason to rethink her attachment to the state, to conclude that it was pragmatic and unnecessary, and that her genuinely principled attachment was to the cause of human emancipation.
This means there’s a meaningful opportunity for education—to highlight the existence of a credible tradition advancing a different meaning of “socialism.”
Libertarianism and the Socialist Vision
Now, it is obviously open to a critic to maintain that she has no particular concern with workplace hierarchies or with deprivation, or that they should be of no concern to the libertarian-qua-libertarian, since objections to them do not flow from libertarian principles.
I am happy to identify as an anarchist who favors markets and property rights (though my Aristotelianism and Thomism disincline me to characterize them in the same way as Stephan), as well as individual autonomy. But I do not ask myself whether my appreciation for “socialism” in this sense is something to which I am committed qua libertarian. Rather, my willingness to identify as a libertarian is licensed by a more fundamental set of moral judgments which also make “socialism” in the relevant sense attractive, and which help to ensure that the senses in which I am a libertarian and in which I am a socialist consistent.
At minimum, there seems to be some reason for using the label “capitalism”, so clearly understood to be the alter of “socialism,” for the kind of economic system we have now, backed up so clearly by state-granted and state-maintained privilege. But I think it’s worth emphasizing that “capitalism”—both because of its history and because of its superficial content—seems to suggest more than merely state-supported privilege (though surely it implies at least this): it seems to suggest “social dominance by the owners of capital (understood to be other than the owners of labor).”
Now, it happens to be the case that I agree with Kevin, Roderick, and others that this dominance is dependent in large measure on state abuses. But I don’t want simply to emphasize my objection to these abuses—though I certainly do—but also to express my opposition, per se, to the dominance of the owners of capital, thus understood. That’s why I am disinclined to regard talk of “socialism” as important, as highlighting, at minimum, the trajectory toward which the market anarchist project be thought to lead, and as identifying morally important values to which my sort of market anarchist, at least, is committed, and which do not seem to me like good candidates for the status of “particular interests,” if these are understood as arbitrary, even if morally licit.
I am avowedly opposed to the institutionalized use of force against persons, and against their (Aristotelian-Thomist) ownership rights, and I am quite willing to say so loudly or clearly. That makes me, by my own lights, a libertarian. But I am not prepared to dismiss my invocation of “socialism” as a label that has not lost its usefulness for the left-libertarian project, as simply an expression of individual preference with which no good libertarian ought to interfere, simply because interference would be unreasonably aggressive. Rather, “socialism” names a set of concerns, including ones regarding attractive patterns of social organization, that there is good reason for left-libertarians whole-heartedly to endorse.
It's fine to favor socialist principles, but in a free market it's not clear that socialist principles would guide the social developement you desire. There would likely be many more businesses much smaller than the huge corporations we now see which survive mainly through State favor, but ownership structures would likely be much the same. Workers, of course, would be free to join together in coops or such, but since there would be no central planning and legislation guiding the development of business structures, it would be up to the market and individuals within the market, what works, what succeeds. If what succeeds is business people who put hours and hours of hard work and dedication into building businesses, and these individuals become very wealthy, and if people still call them evil rich and accuse them of dominating society because they possess more money, what then?
My recent post FEMA and the Statists
Considering the ease of purchasing tools and other means of starting a business, I think wage labor would actually become a thing of the past. In a free market, wage labor would simply prove inefficient. Coops and self-employment would be the order of the day.
At any rate, in a genuinely free market, I think large fortunes would simply be impossible to accumulate.
Besides, I don't think a businessman works nearly as hard as anybody they employ. Or the self-employed.
Not in the production of refrigerators and all types of manufacturing, computers, air conditioners, the tools themselves, lightbulbs, pencils, etc. You will need wage labor just as before, even though there will be more small businesses and self-employment. Of course people will accumulate large fortunes in a free market — what will stop them? There might be more people with large fortunes, but there will be a split between wealthy and poor just like in a statist system, and many of the poor will resent the wealthy.
My recent post MSM fails to report on looting following Sandy
Business people work hard in a different way, when the growth of their wealth is dependent on the growth of the company — managment and owners work many hours and do things that most workers won't or can't do. Physically, the workers usually have more physically demanding work, but unless it's a small technical firm, the brainwork and responsibility at the top is more taxing on the mind and emotions and takes up more of an individual's time and effort.
My recent post MSM fails to report on looting following Sandy
"Business people work hard in a different way, when the growth of their wealth is dependent on the growth of the company — management and owners work many hours and do things that most workers won't or can't do."
This is/would be a great argument in favor of cooperative ownership and management (since "workers" would likely be more devoted to their work if they were allowed to have an ownership stake and managerial control in the company). You should actually make that argument though, rather than try to defend the existing exploitative class structure.
As someone employed after being self-employed for a while, it has struck me how much harder I am working as an employee to deliver the same quality of work that I did as self-employed. The freedom to prioritize my time and effort, to judge the state of my work and the concerns of my clients, etc. is a serious labour saver.
My recent post Occupy the Motor Industry
I don't deny that some would have more, some would have less. It's a matter of proportion; how large would the gap really be? Would there be any have-nots?
As an individualist anarchist, I acknowledge my scheme cannot deliver the kind of equality that my communist anarchist comrades would desire. In common with mutualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism, individualist anarchism operates on the default socialist principle: from each according to their ability, to each according to their deed. Only communist anarchism operates on the basis of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Due to varying degrees of skill, how many other competitors there are, and the demand for a given service, etc there would be differential rewards.
However, a few things to consider. As Adam Smith slyly pointed out:
"The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature as from habit, custom, and education."
I'd also add, in his day and our own, the effects of class background, and the attendant state privileges; he later goes on to suppose that the philosopher and the porter grew up together in a common starting point. This does not seem likely. Chalk it up to his class bias, unconscious in nature; I don't hold it against him.
Still, the point stands. Natural differences in ability, however unequal one might suppose, cannot explain the current distribution of wealth. Even in a freed market, one does not prosper by individual merit alone. One benefits from knowledge (which ought to be held in common anyway. Whatever one's views on property in land & the means of production, property in ideas is clearly theft) generated by others, the products that others produce, the advice and aid of at least some, etc.
I do not discount the pivotal role of individual action and talent. After all, society is other individuals. Each individual is unique from all the others. We also become conscious of our individuality by encountering other people. That we work together for common purposes or benefit from others doesn't change that. I'm an individualist, not an atomist.
But, given a freed market (as much absent of privilege as of top down regulation), would there be a large enough gap in wealth and power to be able to speak of "rich" and "poor" meaningfully? It is the fact that those who do not have a business, and have nothing to offer but their labor and knowledge, that we have any disparity. This matters less when there are many potential employers and a very tight labor market. When those who own are those who work, and those who work as those who own, then said disparity becomes moot.
Which, in a word, must be total ownership and control.
I'm not supporting the current structure — I support a free market. If coops will work, then fine. I'm for all voluntary developments in a free market. But the idea that every one will work with the same dedication and far-sightedness, even if they might make a little more money, is nt based in reality.
My recent post Morning Joe 11/2/2012 — Only Ohio matters
I've had to fire too many people in commision positions who just wouldn't exert the effort.
My recent post Morning Joe 11/2/2012 — Only Ohio matters
I'm self-employed, and the exertion of effort and the time put into succeeding are far greater than any wage job I've had.
My recent post Morning Joe 11/2/2012 — Only Ohio matters
Not if the businesses are not successful — everyone could lose if everyone is a owner — but even if they succeed, some would have to be paid more than others because their contributions would be greater, then a profit would have to be made to invest back in the business, so there's no gaurantee that some will not do much better than others. Plus there has to be agreement between all "owners" and this can get complicated when only a handful have the technical experience and knowledge to make things happen — they could just go off on their own to own their business between say three or four and hire out workers. In a free market there is nothing that makes worker ownership inevitable.
My recent post Obama misrepresents history and present reality
You seem like a decent enough guy. I read your blog. I can't say I support all of your positions, but you clearly are not what Kevin Carson would call a 'vulgar libertarian'. You aren't defending the present structure, and this is good. I do think your decision to support Mitt Romney is ill-considered, just so you know.
For all of that, I give you a thumbs up. Thanks for being a good sport.
Well, there is a bit of vulgar libertarianism, but you seem like a nice enough guy.
Hrm… is it correct to say that socialism is the genus with anarchism and statism are species thereof? It's hard to think there is much in common between, say, a band of hippie collective farmers and Nazis or Soviets (both varients of state socialism), specifically this commonality being opposition to bossism and deprivation. Are these truly sibling children from the same mother? At first glance this seems hard to imagine. But then, maybe that really, really is the difference between anarchy and the state. Could it be that bad? It would seem so…
What a difference the libertarian non-aggression principle can make.
Well, while the socialist credentials of the Soviets and the Nazis can be doubted, the fundamental principle of socialism is this: between Marxism, social democracy, democratic socialism, state socialism, anarchism, etc there is one fundamental principle, only one.
To paraphrase Benjamin Tucker, who was as much a socialist as Marx was, socialism's central goal is to put labor in possession of its own. The opposition to bossism being one thing unique to anarchism. Opposition to deprivation, in theory, is one thing in common to left-wing thought generally.
But, back to socialism. Specifically, it is a broad set of ideas centered on the idea that since labor is the source of all wealth (defined as goods and services), labor (which includes engineers & scientists as much as a wage worker) ought to enjoy the full product or the equivalent there of. Where the disagreement lies…is how to achieve this, and how society should be organized afterwords. But, broadly, there are two wings of socialism: authoritarian (state) and libertarian (anarchism mainly, but there are others). I need not explain the differences thereof.
'Statism' itself means the overwhelming dominance of the state, not merely its presence. And it need not be socialistic.
Basically, socialism =/= statism, at least not necessarily.
I would add that fascism is the embodiment – nay avatar! – of bossism and deprivation.
As Mussolini made explicit in both the 1934 and 1938 Fascist Decalogues, "Mussolini is always right."
And the Nazis, well… concentration camps and gas chambers are instruments of extreme deprivation.
My recent post Photo
Okay well, that makes sense, but it makes it sound like the whole debate between socialism and capitalism is just on who can or ought to be the shareholders of stock in a company – which amounts to ownership and the receiving of dividends. Socialists feel that only workers in a business ought to be able to own shares and receive capital gains. Capitalists feel that anyone, worker or non-worker, ought to be able to own shares and receive capital gains. The reasons for each being either ethical or metaphysical. So variously, property is transferable by contract or it is not. Or it is possible to own something without possessing it or not. Or it is fair to gain profit without adding labor or not. Or contracts should be universally honored or not. Etc.
Is this correct? Is socialism vs. capitalism really, bare bones, as simple as this issue of who can or ought to be a shareholder or not?
Not exactly. The definition I provided is extremely simplified in order to highlight what the socialist critique of capitalism boils down to: that laborers, under capitalism, does not get the full product or the equivalent. Indeed, it is capitalists (defined as whoever happens to own the enterprise) that get it. But, in an era of corporate capitalism, this too is an oversimplification.
It isn't a matter of who can own shares in a company. I frankly reject the whole concept of joint stock enterprise myself-indeed, I reject any form of organization that rests on legal hocus pocus. I digress: it's a more thoroughgoing criticism on society, the economy, and the state. But, it starts with the fact that those who actually make the products seem to be rewarded the least, while those who merely own it get the reward.
With anarchism, among more libertarian socialisms (council communism, guild socialism, left-communism, libertarian Marxism, etc), the matter is not merely about renumeration: it's about control. Do the people who do the work control the conditions of the work, how they work, when they work, and what to do with the finished product?
Then there are questions of the legitimacy of property (or even what it is), contract, profit, etc.
It's about organizing social & economic life under fundamentally different lines. Even individualist anarchism is no exception to this. Anarchism, unique to all forms of socialism, seeks to abolish power in general from human relationships-seeing that it is the domination of the powerful in society that enables exploitation.
I am painting extremely vague and broad strokes, and I may seem to be a bit pushy…but, I want to impress just how radical the project really is.
It's for that reason that, for anarchists, mere abolition of the state just isn't enough-while leaving everything else intact.
Thanks again for the reply. This stuff is very interesting. What a thing it all really is. I don't think you are being pushy, by the way. Broad strokes are very useful as more enough then not these topics get lost in petty arguing and minutia. I like concepts, clear, concise, sharply cut concepts. This makes it very easy to see how one notion fits or doesn't fit with another. And that's what we want: ease of use so that a beginner as much as an expert can pick-up the pieces and do it on their own.