Voluntaryist Anarcho-Communist Associations in a Laissez-Faire Society

A couple days ago, I wrote a small piece about a small problem I had with an otherwise good essay titled "Anarcho-Communism" by Murray Rothbard.

Essentially, the point I make is that in a laissez-faire society, we anarcho-communists would have no ethical objection to allowing those-who-wished-to-engage-in-voluntary-communism from doing so.

It wouldn't be surprising if some chose to go off and found communes, and we would not aggress against them for doing so so long as they did not prevent participants from seceding or force others to join.  But likewise, there would probably be some who would wish to form communist associations, thus allowing anarcho-communists to live among us capitalists without participating in private ownership.

My question is, what sort of impact would such associations have on us engaging in capitalism?  It seems to me that either they would have no impact, or that they would have an inadvertantly negative effect, on us.

I maintain that no matter what effect it has on us, we have no authority whatsoever to use force against them unless they aggress against us.  But could this spell disaster for us if great numbers of people suspended their reason and opted to join the associations or the communes?  (Surely it would spell disaster for those in the associations or communes, particularly if they grow large.)

I put this question forward to economic minds greater than mine.

First, great analysis of the Rothbard piece. I completely agree with your point that true anarcho-communists have nothing to fear from anarcho-capitalists, and that Rothbard's failure to mention this was unfortunate. Second, to address your question of the effect anarcho-communism would have in a free society - I believe this would be a self-correcting phenomenon. Those engaging in production and exchange on the market would prosper and multiply, while the anarcho-communists would gradually lose whatever wealth they may have started with and eventually be faced with the choice of either joining the market economy or starving to death. This has been the fate of all utopian communism in the past, and I see no reason why it would be different in a free society - only that the disparity in wealth and living standards would be even greater, and the lure of anarcho-communism less. Finally, I think you have a typo in your post. Second paragraph, first sentence - I think you mean "we anarcho-capitalists" instead of "we anarcho-communists".

A perfect example of communism-in-action on the small scale, working happily within a capitalist society is, of course, the family.

Although it is not necessary to invoke communism to describe the way the family works internally, it certainly does work on communist-like principles.  So perhaps we need not be quite so concerned about reds under the bed, when we already have plenty of reds on top of the bed?

Brett_McS:

Although it is not necessary to invoke communism to describe the way the family works internally, it certainly does work on communist-like principles.  So perhaps we need not be quite so concerned about reds under the bed, when we already have plenty of reds on top of the bed?

I don't think I have met a libertarian who is against voluntary communal arrangements, which include the family. Though even these family arrangements can be very anti-communal.

But I am still concerned about the reds under the bed who think coercion is a-ok. 

I don't consider the family communist in any way. It's far too hierarchical. More like a mini-kingdom.

Inquisitor:

I don't consider the family communist in any way. It's far too hierarchical. More like a mini-kingdom.

It still has an element of community of goods to it. Children eat the parents food and parents make decisions even over goods the kids have obtained. This applies even when formal arrangements have been made (separation of property of partners etc.). You are of course right that there is a hierarchy with authority, duty, rights, relationship etc. assigned. Families as institutions can compete with each other for authority and ideology. The lack of paternal authority will in the end strengthen the state as institution.

Well yes, I agree there is a certain sharing of resources involved, but communists tend to be rabid egalitarians, something few - if any - families display. As far as I am concerned a healthy family structure and extended social networks are a strong bulwark against statism.

Indeed most (left) socialists, communists pay at least lip services to egalitarianism. But then in their countries, hierarchy is far more rigid then anywhere else. Of course  not in the families, there the kids are even motivated to rebel against parents or spy on them. Results from family failure is usually the excuse for more social state intervention.

allixpeeke:

My question is, what sort of impact would such associations have on us engaging in capitalism?  It seems to me that either they would have no impact, or that they would have an inadvertantly negative effect, on us.

Communes would have a positive effect, in the sense that they would engage in voluntary trade with non-members. A monastery selling wine for example.

Egalitarian associations work so long as all the participants have the same outcome in mind. For example, a condo association can work so long as all of its members own similar condos.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is defined by asymmetrical risk of the capitalist and the wage laborer. The wage laborer trades off all risk of an enterprise for a steady salary. This means that capitalism is most productive when people are extremely different.

Anarcho-communists, although not practicing private property internally, would practice it with the rest of the world, not sharing their goods with non-members who are not like them and defending their commune from invasion. Although their mode of production is highly inefficient, their existence does not pose any challenge to a capitalist-dominated economy.

The ultimate criticism of anyone wishing to use government to implement socialist agendas is that socialism can work within free markets. The reverse, however, is not true.

Whenever someone tries to sell me on socialism, I ask them why they need government to accomplish their goals.

Because I don't see any way to edit my post, I wish to draw attenion to the fact that I mistyped.  When I wrote "we anarcho-communists," I meant to write "we anarcho-capitalists."

I haven't yet read the replies to this post, but in case there was any confusion, hopefully this clears it up.

Grant:

The ultimate criticism of anyone wishing to use government to implement socialist agendas is that socialism can work within free markets. The reverse, however, is not true.

Can it?  How well will a commune work?  Are not those who wish to take more than they produce most likely to join?

JAlanKatz:

Grant:

The ultimate criticism of anyone wishing to use government to implement socialist agendas is that socialism can work within free markets. The reverse, however, is not true.

Can it?  How well will a commune work?  Are not those who wish to take more than they produce most likely to join?

 

Then you'd kick them out. Monasteries have been around for a long time.

When there was still economic freedom in this country a number of small communes existed.

JAlanKatz:

Grant:

The ultimate criticism of anyone wishing to use government to implement socialist agendas is that socialism can work within free markets. The reverse, however, is not true.

Can it?  How well will a commune work?  Are not those who wish to take more than they produce most likely to join?

 

I did not mean to suggest that it would work well. Clearly, communes rarely work well, although I'd imagine they do function better on smaller scales. My point was that under a libertarian legal framework, even the most extreme communist society is possible. The planners are turned from politicians to entrepeneurs, and the value created or destroyed by their communes-turned-firms would be decided by voluntary action.

tgibson11:

First, great analysis of the Rothbard piece. I completely agree with your point that true anarcho-communists have nothing to fear from anarcho-capitalists, and that Rothbard's failure to mention this was unfortunate. Second, to address your question of the effect anarcho-communism would have in a free society - I believe this would be a self-correcting phenomenon. Those engaging in production and exchange on the market would prosper and multiply, while the anarcho-communists would gradually lose whatever wealth they may have started with and eventually be faced with the choice of either joining the market economy or starving to death. This has been the fate of all utopian communism in the past, and I see no reason why it would be different in a free society - only that the disparity in wealth and living standards would be even greater, and the lure of anarcho-communism less. Finally, I think you have a typo in your post. Second paragraph, first sentence - I think you mean "we anarcho-capitalists" instead of "we anarcho-communists".

 

 

Absolutely. See Mises "Socialism" as for yet another confirmation of why.

 

JAlanKatz:

Can it?  How well will a commune work?  Are not those who wish to take more than they produce most likely to join?

... There are pretty some communes around that work well. This would be the Bruderhof, Kibbuzim and many more. Note that these are voluntary associations with a code of conduct that is overlooked by some authority figures and the community there.

I doubt that lazy/greedy people fond of luxuries would join. There are disciplinary measures and what they produce/consume is usually quite basic stuff. The people you described are more likely to become civil servants or corporate parasites. That kind of people that sucks up to the boss, knows how to built relationships and cost a company money.