Call them Marxo-capitalists, if you please…

On the Anarchist Writers blog, Iain McKay reflects on the fact that the term “Marxo-capitalists” might be a better term for the “anarcho”-capitalists than anything else, since they follow the same political tactics than the Marxists did…

Finally, I must note that Rothbard was at pains to argue for a Libertarian political party. So perhaps his ideology would be better termed “Marxo-capitalism”? After all, Rothbard urged its followers to organise into a political party and utilise “political action” to seize the state which would, in turn, dissolve into “anarchy”. As he put it: “I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action.” (Konkin on Libertarian Strategy)

Where have we heard that before? Who mocked anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin for refusing to take part in “political action” and who suggested that by this action the state could be seized, reformed and finally disappear? Why, Marx and Engels! Given this, it would be false to state that “anarcho”-capitalism keeps the politics of individualist anarchism but rejects its economics. Rather, it keeps the politics of Marxism but rejects its economics.

Now, will “Marxo-capitalism” take off as the correct name for “anarcho”-capitalism? Or should we stick with anarcho-statism?

7 thoughts on “Call them Marxo-capitalists, if you please…

  1. PirateRothbard October 25, 2009 at 09:39

    Hmm… I think I’d stick with anarcho-capitalist.

    The anarcho fits because they are absolutely opposed to an form of government. Government being defined as oppressive organizations.

  2. Lance Fallin October 25, 2009 at 17:28

    Hello Franc. I fail to see how Anarchy is better than small, constrained, restrained, limited government. I know you have probably heard this hundreds of times, but if the rest of the planet doesn’t become anarchist, then a country like China could come in and take over. Also, how would people resolve their differences. I’m from the west, I have personally seen two grown men “draw” on each other. Thankfully they didn’t shoot. This is not a common practice because most fear “Johnny Law”. So, wouldn’t it be better to just have a very small government do just 3 things 1. military: for external threats, 2. police: for internal threats and 3. the courts to civilly settle disputes … ??? What’s wrong with that? or Where did I go wrong?

  3. Francois Tremblay October 25, 2009 at 18:03

    “Hello Franc. I fail to see how Anarchy is better than small, constrained, restrained, limited government.”

    There is no such thing as “limited government.” It is a contradiction in terms. For more on the absurdity of minarchism, see
    https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/why-minarchism-is-the-greatest-delusion-part-13/
    https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/194/
    https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/why-minarchism-is-the-greatest-delusion-part-33/

    “I know you have probably heard this hundreds of times, but if the rest of the planet doesn’t become anarchist, then a country like China could come in and take over.”

    The ability to use violence to force people to submit to a government they do not want is not a persuasive argument. As a matter of practicality, anarchist systems are as able to defend themselves as any others.

    “Also, how would people resolve their differences.”

    I can’t believe you’re seriously asking this question. Are you really that unfamiliar with anti-State arguments as a whole? All societies, whether with or without State, have had means to resolve differences. The concepts of justice are innate in human nature.

  4. Lance October 28, 2009 at 11:13

    “All societies, whether with or without State, have had means to resolve differences.”

    I am a bit of an armchair historian, and there were societies in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. You could say that in many cases there was almost all out anarachy (depending on the area or region). But let’s take the most advanced societies by science, math and high organization of government (although in ways, oppressive) like … the Aztec “Triple Alliance” or even the more peaceful Hopi people. The Aztecs would go around harassing the smaller tribes, or smaller states. Killing, enslaving etc.
    The Hopi and Acoma people were always on the lookout (which is why the built their towns on top of Mesas (Plateaus) and inside high mountain caves, complete with Adobe buildings with the doors up very high and ladders with which to pull up quickly if the Apaches came.

    On the East Coast of the Americas, what would become the USA and Canada (Kanata) were various warring tribes, mainly the Iroquois and the Algonquin tribes and alliances (Pocahantas was basically of Algonquin extraction). This was not a lovely paradise as many have painted. This area of the Americas was under constant violence and warfare, and of course when the English came even more death and warfare and destruction for a while. Eventually as time moved on, there developed a more cohesive and more peaceful society, not without cost, and not perfect, but not as violent as before, except …. in inner cities, where tribalistic warfare exists, but even so, it is checked and not near what it would be if there were no kind of government whatsoever. Even if you say the people don’t need any form of gov’t to do the same things, by doing what? Forming vigilantes and councils? This is just gov’t in embryo.

    and then:
    “Are you really that unfamiliar with anti-State arguments as a whole?”

    I guess so, I had read a few Objectivist and Libertarian books. I understand about the evils of a huge state, and that smaller is better.

    I don’t understand no government at all. I just can’t see how that works. I’m not saying it won’t or can’t work, but I am just not understanding that right now. Because to me, even if all you have is just a small kibbutz, a small commune, or even sailors on a ship, there is a structure, an agreement by all, as to what rules to abide by. There is government. I don’t know how we get rid of that unless we go back to hunter/gatherer days, and even then there would be tribalism, which is a form of government.

    and finally:
    “The concepts of justice are innate in human nature.”

    Really? even in Prisons? Even in Barrios and Ghettos? I don’t think that it is innate in human nature enough to just trust everyone will behave and not kill you and take your sh*t. But maybe that’s just a flaw with me.

  5. Francois Tremblay October 28, 2009 at 14:33

    I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, war has always existed. That doesn’t really have much to do with the topic though.

    You seem to have been misinformed about anarchism. It’s not rules that we’re against. Anarchism is not anomie. Anarchism is against hierarchies. It is rules determined from “on high,” based on authority and serving the interests of those authorities, that we oppose.

    I’m not sure what you’re going on about “trusting everyone.” Justice is not about trust. Justice is about knowledge of right and wrong.

  6. Lance October 28, 2009 at 16:47

    Well, I apologize for veering off the subject.

    I guess I have been misinformed about Anarchism.
    What little I have heard about was just bits and pieces through Chomsky and Bakunin, and then I have only scratched the surface.

    I agree that justice is not about trust, and I’ll just leave it at that.

    I am still trying to figure out if I am an objectivist (or something close to it) or … an Anarcho-Syndicalist (or something close to it).

    But as you have said, those things are off topic.

    I will have to study more on the matter. I will read the urls you have posted above. Good to see you in action again! :)

  7. Francois Tremblay October 28, 2009 at 16:51

    No problem.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: