In the current political conversation, anarchy is becoming a significant arguing position. Tea Party Congress members, for example, have embraced one extreme of the anarchy spectrum with a sense of liberal anarchy. They achieved this in the notion that they are willing to go to extreme measures — including supporting a shutdown of the government to minimize not only the role of the government in social engineering, but the government’s interference in the free market.
On the other end of this spectrum is the idea that true individual freedom can only come if a person is free from want. While the idea of state rule is inherently wrong and subject to abuse — according to adherents of social anarchism or libertarian socialism — a group of people or a community should own the means of production they invest their labor in. In doing this, a community — through its ownership of common goods — has the means to offer mutual aid to its members.
American libertarianism as embodied by former Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Rand Paul is seen as a hybrid of the two extremes, as it is recognized as being both representational of liberal anarchy in regards to economic policy and social anarchy in regards to social reforms.
At the core of these extremes, however, is the argument that governmental involvement shouldn’t be assumed and should only exist when it is prudent and necessary. However, the difference between these two measures of government exclusion speaks of the nature of capitalism in the U.S. and questions on the equalness of individual freedom under these two models.
Defining “anarchy”
The word “anarchy,” however, carries allusions of the worst elements of society. For example, the United Kingdom’s Channel 4 News recently reported that Avon and Somerset police confirmed the incineration of three vehicles at the Royal Marine reserve base at Clifton. The group that claimed responsibility — the Informal Anarchist Federation — also claimed responsibility for a line of attacks that includes sabotaging a section of train line prior to the London Olympics and burning down a police firearms training center.
Most individuals that adhere to anarchist philosophies realize that groups, such as the Informal Anarchist Federation, are not anarchists at all. Many have assumed that the word “anarchy” means “without law.” In reality, “anarchy” means “without rule,” as in the removal of a state authority as a mandating force toward dictating social and corporate interactions.
As philosopher Noam Chomsky put it in an recent interview with Modern Success magazine, anarchism comes in different forms and circumstances — primarily it is a suspicion and skepticism of domination, authority, and hierarchy.
“It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them,” he said. “Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.”
Social anarchy
Social anarchy is a “from the bottom up” approach to class equalization. In John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government,” Locke questioned the notion of private ownership, stating that — according to the Bible — God gave the world to humanity equally. Locke argued that the laborer’s work is the laborer’s exclusive property and as the land is owned by all — the laborer putting his labor into the land makes the land his property. It’s not enough, based on Locke, to claim property; one must have a labor investment in the property to rightfully own it.
This differs from the “first possession” theory of property — which states that the first person to claim or seize property rightfully owns it, regardless of the claimant’s intentions to use the property.
Social anarchy is based on the idea that a community — which has invested its energy in the means of production and the common goods within that community — owns the means of production and the common goods. In doing this, the community can equitably and adequately offer all of the community members — the equity owners of the common goods — the mutual assistance, through housing, food, income and support, that the community members need to live without fear of necessity.
It is argued that fear of necessity keeps a person from being truly free. For example, the need to secure food for their children forces many adults to work in jobs they hate and to sacrifice family time for extra work shifts. The need to pay for health insurance premiums may force a person to choose to pay his rent late or to forego buying warm clothing. However, social anarchy differs from socialism — or a state-based government philosophy that ensures that the needs of the people are met through control of the means of production — in the sense that under socialism, the laborer does not have direct control of the means of production.
Portugal is currently the only Western non-Marxist/Leninist socialist country. The 2010 to 2013 Portuguese Economic Crisis — in which Portugal received a €78 billion bailout from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund in 2011 — is thought to be created from bad economic policies due to the nationalization of the nation’s public works and banking , including high management salaries, overspending on private-public partnerships and a redundancy in hiring public employees. These problems have appeared among most nations with high nationalization portfolios including Greece, Spain and France.
Spain and Greece — both subjected to their own bailout dilemmas — are currently beset with high levels of unemployment and cuts to workers’ salaries and benefits. Social anarchists believe that local control of the means of production allows the employees to make decisions that are responsive to both their needs and the business bottom-line.
The National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that there are more than 1,200 companies in the U.S. that are completely- or majority-owned by their employees.
Liberal anarchy
The other extreme — liberal anarchy or free-market anarchy — rejects the community argument of social anarchy, stating that an individual has the right to associate with whomever they choose, with no inherent obligation of mutual aid or benevolence.
Liberal anarchy argues that not only is property dictated by those that have an economic claim to it, but that no one has a right to dictate that property’s use but its owner. The liberal anarchist believes that any form of governmental control — from mandated employee benefits, to environmental reforms to trade limitations — are inherently wrong. Liberal anarchists believe that the free market alone should dictate the means that a person should conduct their business and even their lives.
David Friedman, in his book “The Machinery of Freedom,” argued that the free market is capable of — and does, in some circumstances — offers security and defines the law.
This creates a model in which the individual is free to conduct business as he chose fits. But, this assumes that the individual has access to resources, in the first place. If a person does not has the means to produce a good and must offer his services to sustain himself, under liberal anarchy, the laborer becomes a resource for the producer to use as he feels fit. As the laborer agreeing to continue working offer tacit consent, the producer is under no obligation to act against his own ilk toward supporting the workforce.
During the late 1800s, a large number of major industrialists used exploitive practices — including cornering and exerting control to natural resources, buying off politicians and regulators, paying low wages, manipulating distribution channels via monopolies and stock price manipulation — with the net result of producing the wealthiest men in human history. At the same time, the actions of these “robber barons” created a situation in which poverty was widespread, work conditions were horrific and even fatal and attempts by the workers to unionize and protect themselves were violently put down.
In reality, freedom of action by the producers under liberal anarchy directly undercuts the freedoms of the working class. This dichotomy may or may not be a good thing, as it could be debated that freedom to act to the needs of the business would make the business more profitable — pumping money into the economy, lowering the cost of goods and freeing up money for payroll and new hires. However, as has been witnessed before, one cannot expect someone to be generous just because he has the means to do so.
Liberal anarchy only exists in the U.S. and in the U.K. as a major philosophy. The rest of the world recognizes social and individualistic anarchy as the major branches of the philosophy.