From Strike the Root - by Alex R. Knight III
In November of 2011, a book was published that immediately captured my attention, not only because its central theme was market anarchist economics, but in that its very title challenged the label “capitalism” – long the sacred cow of free-marketeers, self-styled and otherwise.
I must admit that I too had partially fallen prey to the notion of capitalism as referring exclusively to laissez-faire free market activity. In fact, prior to reading Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty, I had never heard the term “freed markets” – meaning an economy in which many often conflicting models of exchange in goods and services coexist, and in which laissez-faire free markets, as such, are only a part of a potential plethora of voluntary systems.
Enter this anthology, compiled and edited by Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson, of 48 separate essays whose authors range from the 19th Century individualist anarchists (Benjamin R. Tucker, Dyer D. Lum, Voltairine de Cleyre), to today’s advocates of libertarian anarchy -- among whom are, including the editors themselves, Roderick T. Long, Kevin A. Carson, and Brad Spangler – many of whom are active with the Center for a Stateless Society. Divided into eight different parts or chapters, the reading selections cover a range of commonplace concerns that many statists, in particular those who identify most strongly with the Left, seem to raise frequently in connection with capitalistic economic constructs.
From “Corporate Power and Labor Solidarity” (Part Four), to “Inequality and Social Safety Nets” (Part Six), to essays culminating in Part Eight, “Freed-Market Regulation: Social Activism and Spontaneous Order” – that address subjects such as racism, the environment, and community organizing from a voluntaryist perspective – the volume’s theme is to demonstrate how traditional government-based thinking and applied “solutions” in relation to such economic and societal maladies merely exacerbates existing conditions while creating a dystopia of new problems. In a nutshell, it challenges the left to rethink paradigms about government regulation. Even Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher of the leftie news site Counterpunch, is quoted on the back cover as saying, “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” And indeed, “left-wing market anarchism” and even “stigmergic socialism” (as per Brad Spangler’s essay at page 85) seem to be some of the more recent descriptive monickers applied to what has been otherwise more customarily thought of as “anarcho-capitalism.”
Perhaps the definitive essay of the compilation in toto is Charles W. Johnson’s “Markets Freed from Capitalism,” in which he delineates three separate models of capitalism, at pages 64-65, divergent from laissez-faire. The first he points to are simply government monopolies or cartels, such as police, roads, or courts, in which private or alternative competition is shut out or actively suppressed. Second, Johnson points to “regressive redistribution,” in which government seizes or confiscates the assets of ordinary people, to be then turned over to bigger and more economically powerful interests. One especially egregious landmark example of this was the 2005 Kelo v. New London U.S. Supreme Court case stemming from Connecticut, where eminent domain provisions were used to hand private homes over to developers involved in non-public construction projects. Thirdly, Johnson defines “captive markets,” whereupon government coercively creates a demand or increase in demand for goods and/or services via mandates backed by penalties or other punitive measures. A prime example of this would be the coming Obamacare mandatory health insurance laws, due to kick into high gear in 2014.
Obviously, these perversions of freed market principles do not square with the purely voluntary exchange and transaction arrangements envisioned by libertarians. Yet, they are all too demonstrative of commonplace occurrences in American and other modern societies generally thought of or referred to as “capitalist.”
Moving into much deeper territory where even libertarian orthodoxy itself can find itself challenged are pieces such as Roderick T. Long’s “A Plea for Public Property” (1998), in which he envisions market mechanisms that embrace non-private interests. One idea Long advances is the idea of rotating ownership, similar to a time-share arrangement in which there is no central owner. At any event, he pens a provocative paragraph at page 162, wherein he states: “Far from providing a sphere of independence, a society in which all property is private thus renders the propertyless completely dependent on those who own property. This strikes me as a dangerous situation, given the human propensity to abuse power when power is available.” Long’s point is that an all-private property system can be just as oppressive as the “public” (government) status-quo. Hence his ultimate assertion on page 168: “But a system that allows networks of private spaces and public spaces to compete against each other offers the greatest scope for individual freedom.”
In “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty as We Know It” (2007), Charles Johnson returns to explain in some detail how America’s poorest and most disadvantaged are prevented by myriads of government licensing schemes, health and fire regulations, and bans on occupation of abandoned properties, from lifting themselves by their own bootstraps out of inner-city slums. In fact, he points out quite succinctly at page 384, that: “The poorer you are, the more you need access to informal and flexible alternatives, and the more you need opportunities to apply some creative hustling. When the state shuts that out, it shuts poor people into ghettoized poverty.”
Overall, Markets Not Capitalism is a landmark text in the development of market anarchist theory, in that it is the first unabashed and cohesive attempt to woo the left away from government statism and state socialist economic models. And while I can certainly recommend you procure a hard copy book version, delightfully, thanks to the efforts of Stephanie Murphy of Porc Therapy, a free downloadable and very well orchestrated audio version, in full is available here. As if that weren’t enough, a serialized YouTube version is also available here (to view further videos, click on the YouTube username ALLtowardliberty).
Perhaps most relevant to the spirit of this book overall, in that it seeks to bridge philosophical gaps that may have up to this juncture seemed unbreachable, is the closing paragraph (at page 240) of Roy A. Childs, Jr.’s essay, “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism,” which first appeared in two parts in the February and March 1971 issues of Reason magazine: “Libertarians themselves should take heart. Our hope lies, as strange as it may seem, not with any remnants from an illusory ‘golden age’ of individualism, which never existed, but with tomorrow. Our day has not come and gone. It has never existed at all. It is our task to see that it will exist in the future. The choice and the battle are ours.”

Comments
Roderick Long is a part of
Roderick Long is a part of the Mises Institute, a limited government free market capitalism think tank. I'm sorry but Anarchy and Capitalism are mutually exclusive. Even if he seems to be advocating some "market" anarchism that is non-capitalistic (?), he's part of the capitalist mindset with the Mises Institute.
The fact that Reason magazine is also sited shows the way that capitalists try to dabble their limited government capitalism that usually appeals to Christian Businessmen to some confused far left types.
I blame Chomsky for this bullshit. As long as that millionaire college professor fucker is listed as an anarchist, any Joe Schmo Capitalist fuckhead can slime his stinky ass bullshit called "market anarchism" and call it "anti-capitalist"
Something fuckin' stinks here...flush chomsky and these capitalists down the toilet.
At least Chomsky says he
At least Chomsky says he favors worker and community control. He was directly inspired by the revolution in Spain in 1936. He's the most prominent and respected anarchist in the world today, and has probably pointed more people toward anarchism than anyone else alive. But, no, that's not good enough for some of you, just because he's insufficiently puritanical about it. I doubt anyone lives up to the standard. Have a job? Pay rent? Guess you're not an anarchist!
"insufficiently puritanical"
"insufficiently puritanical" ?
Were not talking about whether Chomsky dumpter dives or listens to the "right" music or some lifestyle stuff ? He advocates people to vote and on top of that to vote for Obama if you live in a swing state.
No one is being puritanical when they call out his bullshit.
"Oh man, I heard Chomsky loves Nickelback and Justin Bieber. He's never heard of Leftover Crack, man !!! He's a sellout, a phony anarchist !!!"
So what ?!?!
So what ?!?!
Chomsky made some great points. Obama has a much better job than his predecessor and the Green Party is a great vehicle for social change, but, if need be, I'll vote Democrat like Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, Angela Davis, or any right-thinking radical would...
Sorry if I'm not as "Pure" as your holier-than-thou Anarchism. Some of us want to have a country when its time for our grandchildren to be around, like Chomsky is probably thinking.
look there is no point in
look there is no point in arguing here about it. we all make compromises but no one who is an anarchist want "a country" to still be around for thier grandchildren.
"no one who is an anarchist
"no one who is an anarchist want "a country" to still be around for thier(Sic) grandchildren."
Puritanical Purist
its not puritanical there is
its not puritanical there is difference between compromises that are made out of necessity or pragmatism and believing in them.
> or any right-thinking
> or any right-thinking radical would...
You mean left-thinking radical would
Maybe if there was actually
Maybe if there was actually an organized campaign to get people to strategically boycott elections, instead of the quasi-moralistic "at least I'm not part of it" shit we're doing now.
Well I advocate that you vote
Well I advocate that you vote for Vermin Supreme!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
VOTE!
HE GAVE A KIDNEY TO HIS MOM!
HE GAVE A KIDNEY TO HIS MOM! COULD OBAMA DO THAT?
personally i tend to reject
personally i tend to reject all commericalism. not just capitalist commercialism. i think even Proudhom will not sympathize with these people
I'll consent to a free market
I'll consent to a free market ONLY so long as the money being used are giant stone wheels which must by rolled to the hut of the seller after a purchase has been made, by the buyer themselves. Make them at least break a sweat to make a purchase and then maybe it will mean something.
fuck these people. Fuck these
fuck these people. Fuck these people so fucking hard
This book and this type of
This book and this type of thinking is heavily promoted on the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) website. If you look at who likes C4SS on their facebook, etc., you'll notice mostly right-winger, conservative, capitalist types.
I wonder why ?
"In a nutshell, it challenges
"In a nutshell, it challenges the left to rethink paradigms about government regulation. "
Well done, anarchists.
You mean that it is part of
You mean that it is part of the big fight between some people and other over the amount of regulations there are from a government in regard to economic activity. The first regulation being private property.
Accept money and markets or
Accept money and markets or remain a cult/sect...its your choice. Reject money and markets and you may as well be a Marxist moron imho.
Signed pro2rat ( My 2c)
I have seen you type the
I have seen you type the stupidest comments on here, pro2rat.
Private property can only
Private property can only exist due to governments, or entities which will turn into governments, despite capitalists' fantastical assertions otherwise. At no point have "anarcho"-capitalists described a stable endstate which somehow fails to become a monopolistic oligarchy, nor a revolutionary path to eliminate the government from the current state of affairs.
Add new comment