The Anarcho-Statists

For quite some time now, Kevin Carson has critisized what he calls "vulgar libertarianism". Vulgar libertarian is a tendency of some libertarians, particularly those with an affinity for "the right", to function as apologists for currently existing economic conditions and corporations as if they came about as the result of "the free market" and even outright advocate statist policies in the name of "the free market". In short, they defend the effects of corporatism in the name of "the free market". For the most part, I find Carson's criticisms in this regaurd to be fairly spot on. Vulgar libertarianism is indeed a considerable problem.

However, there is another tendency displayed by some of the libertarian "left" that sort of runs in the other direction. If the vulgar libertarian could be said to concentrate on anti-statism and anti-socialism while ignoring the problems of corporatism and non-governmental forms of exploitation (or making apologetics for the results of the corporatist economy), a significant portion of social anarchists would appear to display the opposite problem: they concentrate so much on anti-capitalism that they start to neglect the problem of statism and function as a apologists for state-socialism. In short, they underemphasize and seem blind to the degree of power that the state has and how it effects matters.

While the vulgar libertarian functions as an apologist for gigantic corporations, the virtuently anti-capitalist libertarian functions as an apologist for state bereaucracies and coercive labor unions. Indeed, much of the valid complaints that the libertarian left makes about the modern chartered corporation applies just as much so to modern chartered unions. For the most part, modern unions are by no means free associations. They are cartels with government privileges and they function much like corporations (even with mergers). This is a problem that particularly applies to anarcho-syndicalists, who envision unions as their main strategic means to bringing about a free society.

But the problem cuts much deeper than coercive unions. For while the virulent social anarchist opposes what they see as being "private tyrannies", a temptation arises to view the state as a more benevolent alternative. The prospect that the state's intervention itself brought about such "private tyrannies" to begin with seems dim or unfathomable to some social anarchists. Instead, they tend to see it as an inevitable result of the market itself. Consequentially, it would appear that they can only turn to the state to crack down on the allegedly private sector created problems. The state appears to be a balancing force that can potentially help alleviate "private tyranny". To these people, government provided goods and services is seen as preferable in comparison to private or corporate provision.

Due to this confusion, some social anarchists are actually functioning as state-socialists in disguise. I have seen this myself first-hand. They will defend blatantly statist ideas and policies such as national healthcare, the minimum wage, anti-trust and personal welfare. They are essentially duped by the populist rhetoric behind such policies that panders to sentiments of empathy towards the poor and needy (and derision towards the wealthy and powerful). They fail to see how, if anything, these policies are substantively more corporatist than not. And they fail to see how such interventions would blatantly contradict anarchism. Such policies are supported in the name of alleviating conditions that are thought of as being the inevitable result of private property and the market economy.

If all of the problems in society are blamed entirely on private property and the profit motive, it is easy to see why one would tend to view state intervention (backed up by egalitarian rhetoric) as a solution or "lesser evil". But an informed social anarchist should know better than to overlook the institutional role of the state in such problems, let alone see the state as a solution. They should not accept the false choice between state tyranny and private tyranny, or between state-socialism and corporatism. Opposition to corporatism should not blind one to the evils of the state apparatus itself.

In order to have a more sound view of matters, the social anarchist should temper or modify their position in certain ways. For one thing, they should aschew the Marxist class analysis, which largely neglects the role of the state in class conflict (as well as the role of the enterprenuer in an economy). Furthermore, they should have a better understanding of how modern welfare states formed on the behalf of big buisiness with the purpose of cartelizing economies. They need to understand how government intervention in an economy creates the conditions they abhor and benefits the private groups that they despise. Otherwise, there will be an overwhelming tendency to drift towards state-socialism.

Published Thu, Apr 17 2008 1:46 PM by Brainpolice
Filed under: , , , ,

Comments

# Cork said on 20 April, 2008 02:18 PM

I've noticed that quite a few "social anarchists" totally misunderstand and misuse the phrase "vulgar libertarianism."  They use the phrase to describe anyone who wants to cut welfare programs and government regulation (which was never Carson's point at all).

Most "social anarchists" are even bigger statists than the average joe.  A disturbing number of them support Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (any blood-soaked dictator who comes along, basically).

# Brainpolice said on 20 April, 2008 07:26 PM

You're right that Carson's concept of "vulgar libertarianism" does not describe people who oppose the welfare state and economic intervention in general. It's supposed to describe those who defend currently existing conditions and corporations for their own sake as if they came about from a free market processes when they did not, those who are pro-big-buisiness for its own sake divorced from context, etc.

It really depends on which social anarchists. I've met some who are quite reasonable and even not that far off from my own position. But the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists in particular who I've encountered have all been irrationally hostile, insist on inevitable conflict, bash all market oriented anarchism and deny that it is really anarchism. These same people then go on to defend state-socialism without even realizing it.

# William said on 21 April, 2008 12:59 PM

Next to no Social Anarchists support Chavez and Castro.  To give you a sense of proportionality it's a far, far smaller percent than Market Anarchists who think Somalia is Utopia.

I agree more or less with your points.  But, while annoying tendencies they have, I don't think most of the folks you're referring to are so far gone as to deserve the anarcho-"statist" moniker.  

Those who haven't already should damn well ditch Marx, but that doesn't mean ignoring the self-conscious creation of existing class lines.  When a social anarchist declares that the working class are being exploited and that she'd love to take a shotgun to the super-rich because they're all murdering thieves in bed wit the cops, I'm not going to bother quibbling.  She's got it close enough.

# Brainpolice said on 21 April, 2008 09:52 PM

It's many of the anarcho-syndicalists in particular who bother me. I can say that at least from personal experience that I've tried to extend the olive branch and build bridges to them but they often just spit in my face. They even seem hostile to mutualism and individualist anarchism.

And sometimes I suspect that their global federation of unions would function as a state in practise. Furthermore, the phrase they often use about decision-making in portion to the degree that one is effected by something seems very vague to me, as anyone could concievably arbitratilary claim to be effected by something, directly or indirectly.