An Anarchist FAQ (AFAQ) is now at version 15.10. This release is a revision of an appendix debunking "anarcho"-capitalism.
Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
A revision of an appendix discussing why "anarcho"-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. Initially, this was the original
version of section F before it was edited down for the publication of volume 1 of An Anarchist FAQ.
This revision includes the changes made as part of that process plus a general revision of the appendix.
The appendix which has been revised can be considered as a supplement to section F (on "anarcho"-capitalism) of the main AFAQ. Indeed, it was the original version of that section before it was edited and revised for publication. Rather than lose all the material, it was decided to place it in an appendix. This allowed the core critique of "anarcho"-capitalism to remain in the main FAQ and in the published version. Obviously, it would have been preferrable not to have this section at all but debunking "anarcho"-capitalist claims of being anarchist had to be done.
With the re-organisation of AFAQ as part of its move to its own dedicated site, the combination of previously separate sub-section files does show the length of certain sections and sub-sections far more than in previous incarnations. We hope our readers will understand. Given the origins of AFAQ as an anarchist anti-"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ, it is understandable that this appendix is long. It contains some of the earliest material written for AFAQ and as the focus widened, a lot of this material was hardly as relevant as before. This became clear when getting the first volume ready for publication and length considerations became paramount. So section F was radically reduced and the initial material was moved to this appendix. When AFAQ was being revised for publication so was this shortened section, which meant it became slightly longer again. These revisions have now been incorporated into this revised appendix.
Yes, this appendix is lengthy -- very lengthy for a question whose short, and correct, answer is: "No, don't be daft". An awareness of anarchist theory and history would ensure that this would suffice but that cannot be assumed (even for those, academics, whose job it is to know of such things before writing about them). Then there is those acting with bad-faith, such as Marxists who have an interest in associating anarchists with propertarians to better discredit them in the eyes of those resisting capitalism and, of course, propertarians themselves. All too many seem keen to take the claims of the propertarians at face value, ignoring the roots of anarchism within the wider socialist and labour movements. Rather, they present a disembodied "anarchism" which seems defined to shoe-horn into it all those who claim to be "anarchists" without evaluating these claims -- in the process they produce an "anarchism" which ignores its anti-capitalist history and ideas.
Suffice to say, if AFAQ were to be re-written then much of the "anarcho"-capitalist material would be removed, even as an appendix. However, as it has been published, such a re-write will not happen even if the wealth of material by the historical anarchist movement unsurfaced or newly translated in recent decades would help improve it. And it should be stressed that as more of the historic writings of the movement become available, the more the socialist (anti-capitalist) nature of anarchism becomes clearer and clearer. The notion that anarchism can be removed from its wider aspirations and turned into just an "anti-State" theory is simply ridiculous -- particularly given its anti-Statism was driven by a clear awareness that the State was an instrument for the property-owning classes to oppress the working masses and secure their exploitation.
As the AFAQ has a double aim, to be both an introduction to anarchism and a resource for anarchists and other radicals to draw upon, it is obvious that the new appendix was primarily aimed at the second one, namely as a resource. As such, its length can considered as justifiable -- and we can admit that some of our questions in this appendix are less frequently asked than others! We should also note that much of our material has been utilised elsewhere, with -- for example -- Murray Rothbard's cheerful admission of stealing the term "libertarian" from the left regularly appearing elsewhere after AFAQ brought it to a wider audience:
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence [in the late 1950s] is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy [. . .] 'Libertarians' [. . . ] had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over, and more properly from the view of etymology; since we were proponents of individual liberty and therefore of the individual’s right to his property." [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83]
What is bizarre is that Rothbard recounts this in spite of such an act being against his self-proclaimed principles. Let us recall what this alleged advocate of "the individual's right to his property" had to say about names and labels:
"Every individual in the free society has a right to ownership of his own self and to the exclusive use of his own property. Included in his property is his name, the linguistic label which is uniquely his and is identified with him. A name is an essential part of a man’s identity and therefore of his property [. . .] defense of person and property [. . .] involves the defense of each person’s particular name or trademark against the fraud of forgery or imposture." [Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market, pp. 670-1]
This "means the outlawing" of someone taking another's name and pretending to be them as this would be "abusing the property right" of someone to "his unique name and individuality". Likewise, "the use by some other chocolate firm of the Hershey label would be an equivalent of an invasive act of fraud and forgery." This was because a "name, as we have seen, is a unique identifying label for a person (or a group of persons acting co-operatively), and is therefore an attribute of the person and his energy" and so "is an attribute of a labour factor". If someone "inherited or purchased" something which had been stolen then the thing "properly reverts back" to the original creator "or his descendants without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally-derived 'title.' Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter". [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 671 and 679]
The hypocrisy is obvious. According to his own ideology, Rothbard admitted to conducting "an invasive act of fraud and forgery" against "the individual's right to his property." Thus, if they had any actual principles beyond fetishising property and being shills for the economically powerful, his latter-day followers would stop using the term they stole and let the "anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety" use what is rightly ours.
Still, all this showed how ideological capitalism does mirror "actually existing" capitalism, where principles are happily ignored when it suits its defenders. If "libertarians" feel we are being unjust, then let them apply their principles and reject the use of "libertarian" and "anarcho" -- for some reason we doubt they will. Still, it is good to see that certain of the quotes uncovered as well as arguments raised by AFAQ have appeared more widely over the years, meaning that these writings have served some purpose.
As well as exposing his own hypocrisy, reading Rothbard was also useful in debunking his own ideology as becomes clear in the appendix. It also becomes clear that, following Rothbard's lead, many of the propertarians have stolen "anarchist" in order to increase authoritarian social relationships rather than reduce them. Thus private hierarchies are acceptable and not considered tyranny even if they are acting in ways similar to public authorities. This can be seen when Rothbard uses as a hypothetical example a country whose King is threatened by a rising right-"libertarian" movement. The King responses by "employ[ing] a cunning stratagem," namely he "proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his kingdom to the 'ownership' of himself and his relatives." Rather than taxes, his subjects now pay rent and he can "regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on" his property as he sees fit. Rothbard then asks: "Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 54]
Rothbard rejects this stratagem but does not seem to notice that he has admitted that property produces social relations "no less" or even "more" despotic than those produced by the State. That liberty is not the aim or concern of "libertarianism" can be seen from this admission -- for non-ideologues, it is striking how strange that a "libertarian" principle could result in an increase in despotism and how strange that a leading "libertarian" can state this without questioning it. Suffice to say, when Proudhon argued that "property is despotism" he considered this as a compelling reason to abolish it rather than champion it.
So, here as elsewhere, Rothbard himself shows why anarchists have to be anti-capitalist -- and why it, from its birth, has been. The notion of an "anarchism" which is simply "anti-State" would be a self-contradictory mess, as Rothbard shows by his support for the authoritarian social relationships associated with property which, he admits, can be even more despotic than those associated with the State. A strange position for an ideology which proclaims its love for liberty.
Rothbard tries to get around the obvious similarities of property and State -- similarities he himself highlights -- by consulting the history of the ownership rights of the authority rather than looking at the social relationships involved. Yet appeals to history are selective for the propertarian simply invents a "Just-So" story to defend their favoured institution. This can be seen from Rothbard's "homesteading" theory of property as well as other aspects of his ideology.
For example, consider "limited liability", a cornerstone of the modern capitalist regime. Before the State generalised it for all companies in the mid-nineteenth century, it was a privilege granted by monarchs or parliaments for specific enterprises to allow their investors to escape from the debts the companies they invested in generated. This was very much against the common law perspective and was done for reasons of State or to help enrich the select few. It was not a natural evolution but rather the product of State intervention. Rothbard knew this but as a good capitalist ideologue he supported it and so produced an appropriate "Just-So" story:
"Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann’s The Good Society. It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations." [Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market, p. 1144]
This never happened. Lippman gave the actual history of limited liability:
"The concentration of control does not come from the mechanization of industry. It comes from the state, which began about a hundred years ago to grant to anyone who paid a nominal fee what had hitherto been a very special privilege. That was the privilege of incorporation with limited liability and perpetual succession [. . .] For, without the privileges and immunities of the corporate form of economic organization and property tenure, the industrial system as we know it could not have developed and could not exist [. . .] What, to take obvious examples, has the machine technology to do with the chain store or with the United States Steel Corporation or the General Motors Corporation? These organizations exist because of a special and recent development of the law which permits one limited liability corporation to own other limited liability corporations [. . .] The concentration of control in modern industry is not caused by technical change but is a creation of the state through its laws." [Walter Lippmann, The Good Society, pp. 13-4]
Rothbard's account, it must be stressed, was never tried nor was it even approximated. It is a "Just-So" story, one which allows him to ignore history in favour of his story. He did the same for the creation of his favoured system of property rights. So while he pointed to history for anything he disapproved of, for things he approved of he invented a little story so we can ignore actual history. It was a case of "it could have happened like this, so we will assume it did" -- but only for institutions he liked. Thus his "Just-So" story of property follows Locke's but he stops before Locke's final step in which all the owners of their justly acquired property consolidate their holdings into a join-stock company called the State. Only at this final stage does Rothbard proclaim "let us reject his story and embrace history". Still, we should never forget that Rothbard's defence of his ideology rests on a "Just-So" story and that, like the State, the current distribution of property and definition of property rights reflects thousands of years of violence and coercion and saying "it could have happened this way" is hardly adequate -- particularly when it is being used to justify authoritarian social relationships and their restrictions on liberty for non-property owners.
We must never forget that for Rothbard "the absolute right of property" grants the property-owner every authoritarian power imaginable over people in their property except preventing them from leaving. So long as they remain, they are considered as having consented to everything being done to them. Thus "liberty" is directly related to "property", with those without property being without liberty. Ultimately, the much proclaimed "right of self-ownership" amounts to is a right to leave -- a right which no way also implies the ability or opportunity to leave. That this so-called "libertarianism" has adherents who express quite authoritarian views is not that surprising, given its roots in "classical liberalism" which aimed to justify, defend and rationalise the private hierarchies within society against the demands and rebellions of those subject to them.
Nor should we forget that the birth and growth of anarchism coincided with the height of "classical liberalism" in the UK, USA and other countries. Anarchists, then, were well acquainted with close approximations to the propertarian ideal -- and opposed it, aiming to organise those subject to it in order to end and replace it with an actual free society. Their opposition was not a case of bemoaning the taxation used to fund the troops breaking strikes and repressing uprisings nor urging the use of private forces. So when the likes of Murray Rothbard point to nineteenth century America as close to their ideal, anarchists note that the anarchists of the time fought the public and private exploitation and oppression that society was based upon. In the words of Individualist Anarchist and trade unionist Josephe Labadie (as quoted in the British Socialist League's newspaper):
"TRADES' UNIONS cannot confine their actions to merely exclusive trade matters any more if they want to be abreast of the times. Unjust social conditions are crowding them away from their old stumping grounds, and the methods that were effective fifty years ago are useless now. The mere regulating of trade matters is too small game for large bodies of presumably intelligent men to waste so much ammunition on. Of course, these little matters need attention, but we must not make the adjustment of these the paramount object of our great organisations. Why should not these unions grapple with the question of the right of every honest, industrious person to live? This necessarily would lead them to demand access to the means of earning a living, -- the raw materials of nature, and the tools of production and exchange. The products of labour must be the wages of the labourer, and any association whose actions and hopes are not in this direction cannot consistently claim to be a labour organisation. -- J. A. LABADIE in Labor Leaf." [The Commonweal, February 1886]
Such perspectives are rarely, if ever, found in "anarcho"-capitalist or other propertarian journals and would undoubtedly be denounced as "Marxism" if they were. However, in anarchist papers, pamphlets and books of the nineteenth century the critique of capitalism was as prevalent as the critique of the State and both were interwoven -- and, ironically, Rothbard himself shows why this dual critique was needed.
Reading Rothbard, it is obvious that he was unfamiliar with anarchist theory. His defence of property, for example, reads like Proudhon never put pen to paper. He seems to be aware that anarchism was anti-capitalist but did not let that stop him trying to appropriate the name "anarchism" from his anarchist enemies just as he had "libertarian". This produces paradoxes. For example, as shown in our appendix on anarchist symbols, anarchists took up the black flag because it was, to quote Louise Michel, the flag of strikes. In other words, like the red flag (again, used by anarchists) this was a symbol of resistance to capitalism, a symbol of the (French) labour movement. Yet "[i]n the winter of 1963-64 [. . .] some of the group also unfurled the 'black-and-gold flag,' the colors of which we had all decided best represented anarcho-capitalism: black as the classic color of anarchism and gold as the color of capitalism and hard money." [Rothbard, Betrayal of the American Right, p. 188] The notion of combining a symbol of resistance to capitalism with a symbol representing its most extreme form is, at best, ironic and, at worse, a product of wilful ignorance -- and need it be noted that anarchists took up the black flag during the period when the gold standard was the basis for the international monetary system, namely from the 1870s to the early 1920s? Indeed, all wings of the anarchist movement wished, to use Proudhon's words, "to abolish the royalty of gold".
It is somewhat amusing to see how logical deductions from a few (allegedly) self-evident axioms can produce so many diverse and opposing positions. Thus this methodology can show the need for a minimum State as well as competing private States, that voluntary slavery is necessary for "libertarian" principles as well as being against those self-same principles, and so on. Likewise, obvious conclusions can be drawn from, say, the regular discussion of slave contracts in propertarian circles (whether for or against) and the complete lack of such within anarchist ones. The notion that a "free" society could have unfree people within it was and is one alien to anarchism. That propertarians can and do support the notion shows that authoritarian social relationships is not something which bothers them -- unlike anarchists.
So reading the likes of Rothbard soon makes it clear that "anarcho"-capitalists hold positions distinctly at odds with anarchism. It is anti-egalitarian, pro-property, pro-capitalism, pro-hierarchy (private ones) and even its "anti-Statism" -- which is used to link it with anarchism -- does not rest on the same basis, with its "anti-Statism" based on the State not protecting property sufficiently whilst anarchist anti-Statism is based on it protecting property. It would be like saying anarchism and fascism are somehow linked because both oppose the democratic State while ignoring the radically different reasons for this opposition. Still, the "anarcho"-capitalists call themselves anarchists and that seems sufficient for some -- although it seems unlikely that such people think that the People's Republic of China is actually a republic simply because it calls itself one.
Ultimately, like the "classical" liberalism it is descended from, the ideology is not about freedom but rather presenting domination as liberty -- by means of various "just-so" stories and making the sources of domination -- in this case, property -- sacred. So much so, that they seek to insert "spooks" into the head so that its victims would happily let themselves die of dehydration if an enterprising individual appropriates the only oasis in a desert.
It may be argued that anarchism is a political theory and has been associated, historically, with a number of different economic schools -- mutualism, individualism, collectivism and communism (anarcho-syndicalism represents a strategy rather than a goal, with most of its supporters aiming for libertarian communism). This ignores that these schools are all socialist (in the sense of aiming for the end of the exploitation of labour by capital) and so reflect anarchist principles (of course, each school suggests it does this better than the others but that is neither here nor there). So the different anarchist schools reflecting different economic systems does not suggest any economic system can be forced into anarchism -- it has to be consistent with anarchist principles and so politics. The political, economic and social ideas of anarchism cannot be arbitrarily separated from each other -- they are as interwoven as the political and economic aspects of capitalism both historically and currently. Ironically, "anarcho"-capitalism itself proves that this is the case.
It should be noted that there are anarchists who favour markets, such as mutualists and individualist anarchists. As such, like market socialism, the notion of a market anarchism is plausible and exists within the anarchist tradition -- market libertarian socialism, if you like. However, the problem is that some "anarcho"-capitalists have taken to using the term to mask their politics. As such, the term is problematic and should not be taken at face value any more than right-wing use of the term "libertarian" and "anarcho". Still, it is easy enough to determine whether someone is a genuine anarchist or not -- see if they defend rent, interest and profits.
The space given in AFAQ to debunking "anarcho"-capitalism should not suggest it is a significant movement. It is not -- although it does influence the wider right and attacks upon the working class. The exception which proves the rule is, of course, Javier Milei, current President of Argentina -- although it is unlikely that even a minority of his voters subscribe to his "anarcho"-capitalism. Yet even this shows how far "anarcho"-capitalism is from anarchism, as Milei is pursuing Rothbard's strategy of standing in elections which is a Marxist rather than an anarchist one (as noted in section 8, another fundamental difference with the ideas and practice of the anarchist movement.). The notion that an anarchist can be the head of a State is strange enough and, again, cannot be found in anarchist theory. Yes, Proudhon was elected to the National Assembly during the 1848 revolution but he opposed having a President (and an executive) and the experience reinforced his anti-Statism and saw him subsequently advocate abstentionism.
For the notion of an "anarchist" President we have to turn, appropriately enough, to fiction rather than the history or theory of anarchism. Robert Heinlein invented a character who proclaimed themselves a "rational anarchist" in the Science Fiction novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, namely Professor Bernardo de la Paz who also proclaimed Jefferson as being "first of the rational anarchists". While we note in section A.4.2 that Jefferson advocated a liberal anti-capitalism which meant he was closer to anarchism than many "classical" liberals, being both President and a slave owner damage his libertarian credential. Suffice to say, considering the head of a State and a slaver as an anarchist shows a distinct of lack understanding about anarchism and what it stands for -- it should come as no surprise that The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is popular in propertarian circles.
Milei's actions upon taking office do, however, confirm anarchist views of "anarcho"-capitalism as being a tool for the ruling class. As with other propertarian experiments -- such as Chile (see section C.11) -- initial apparent successes were celebrated (and the costs on the working masses ignored, downplayed or justified) before being quickly followed by another round of commentary on how he was not a "real libertarian" when it inevitably failed. Needless to, Milei was not bothered about the lack of consent for the $20 billion bailout provided by the Trump administration (not to defend U.S. interests, but in an attempt to rescue the reputation of Trump and the hedge-fund billionaires who bet on Milei), Milei proved that spending cuts are all about inflicting widespread suffering on ordinary citizens whilst the State is there to aid the wealthy. Needless to say, Milei did not cut purchases of second-hand F-16 fighter jets from the US, via Denmark (price tag: $300 million) while lavishing funds on the ever-larger riot police operations needed to violently suppress public protests.
It should be noted that Argentina has a long history of genuine anarchism. Indeed, the Argentine anarchist movement was one of the strongest in South America and had significant popular support between 1890 and 1930 after which a series of military governments crushed the movement. Anarchists played a key role in the labour movement, with the Argentine Regional Workers' Federation (FORA) conducting numerous struggles and general strikes. Unsurprisingly, modern-day anarchists have denounced the Milei government's "turbo-capitalist" programme to "profoundly change the social, economic and political relations" in the country in favour of the capitalist class. A joint statement from Santa Cruz Anarchist Organization (OASC), Rosario Anarchist Federation (FAR), Anarchist Organisation of Tucuman (OAT) and Anarchist Organisation of Cordoba (OAC) highlighted the "repression and criminalisation of popular resistance" accompanying the extreme-right economic programme. "In alliance with the judiciary", said the statement, "Milei's government opened cases and arrested activists and union leaders, threatened workers who participated in strikes with dismissal, [and] organised media operations against workers in conflict". These genuine anarchists, like their forerunners, aim "to build a popular, collective alternative, for a better life for those at the bottom" -- that they have to do so against the decrees of the self-proclaimed "anarchist" head of State shows how far "anarcho"-capitalism is from all the schools within the anarchist tradition.
All and all, a shabby affair with nothing to do with anarchism other than to confirm the interwoven nature of State and capital, how at odds propertarianism is with genuine libertarian ideas and the flaws in using political action to gain State power to impose propertarian -- or any other -- ideology.
Finally, it should be noted that next year (2026) marks the 30th anniversary of the official launch of AFAQ. Given this, we aim to complete the revision of the various finished appendices by that date. Then we will work on the remaining unfinished appendix on the Russian Revolution (section H.6 does cover all the key issues). There is no date for that yet but we will aim to add to its blog a bit more regularly than previously. It all very much depends on other projects and life -- AFAQ is not funded at all and is dependent on people volunteering to work on it in their spare time. So hopefully understanding and patience will be expressed at its incomplete status after so many years!