Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty 13

Article by Rad Geek. 

Is anyone interested in writing a review of this for ATS?

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Table of Contents.

Part One: The Problem of Deformed Markets

  • The Freed Market, William Gillis (2007)
  • State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ, Benjamin R. Tucker (1888)
  • General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (selections), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1851)
  • Markets Freed from Capitalism, Charles Johnson (2010)

Part Two: Identities and Isms

  • Market Anarchism as Stigmergic Socialism, Brad Spangler (2006)
  • Armies that Overlap, Benjamin Tucker (1890)
  • The Individualist and the Communist: A Dialogue, Rosa Slobodinsky and Voltairine de Cleyre (1891)
  • A Glance at Communism, Voltairine de Cleyre (1892)
  • Advocates of Freed Markets Should Oppose Capitalism, Gary Chartier (2010)
  • Anarchism without Hyphens, Karl Hess (1980)
  • What Laissez Faire? Sheldon Richman (2010)
  • Libertarianism through Thick and Thin, Charles Johnson (2008)
  • Socialism: What It Is, Benjamin R. Tucker (1884)
  • Socialist Ends, Market Means, Gary Chartier (2009)

Part Three: Ownership

  • A Plea for Public Property, Roderick T. Long (1998)
  • From Whence Do Property Titles Arise? William Gillis (2009)
  • The Gift Economy of Property, Shawn Wilbur (2008)
  • Fairness and Possession, Gary Chartier (2011)
  • The Libertarian Case against Intellectual Property Rights, Roderick T. Long (1995)

Part Four: Corporate Power and Labor Solidarity

  • Corporations versus the Market, or Whip Conflation Now, Roderick T. Long (2008)
  • Does Competition Mean War? Benjamin R. Tucker (1888)
  • Economic Calculation in the Corporate Commonwealth, Kevin Carson (2007)
  • Big Business and the Rise of American Statism, Roy A. Childs, Jr. (1971)
  • Regulation: The Cause, Not the Cure, of the Financial Crisis, Roderick T. Long (2008)
  • Industrial Economics, Dyer D. Lum (1890)
  • Labor Struggle in a Free Market, Kevin A. Carson (2008)
  • Should Labor Be Paid or Not? Benjamin R. Tucker (1888)

Part Five: Neoliberalism, Privatization, and Redistribution

 

  • Free Market Reforms and the Reduction of Statism, Kevin A. Carson (2008)
  • Free Trade is Fair Trade: An Anarchist Looks at World Trade, Joe Peacott (2000)
  • Two Words on ‘Privatization,’ Charles W. Johnson (2007)
  • What Are the Specifics? Karl Hess (1969)
  • Confiscation and the Homestead Principle, Murray N. Rothbard (1969)

 

Part Six: Inequality and Social Safety Nets

 

  • Let the Free Market Eat the Rich! Economic Entropy as Revolutionary Redistribution, Jeremy Weiland (2011)
  • Individualism and Inequality, Joe Peacott
  • How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis, by Roderick T. Long (1993)
  • The Poverty of the Welfare State, Joe Peacott (1998)

 

Part Seven: Barriers to Entry and Fixed Costs of Living

 

  • How ‘Intellectual Property’ Impedes Competition, Kevin A. Carson (2009)
  • The American Land Question, Joseph Stromberg (2009)
  • English Enclosures and Soviet Collectivization: Two Instances of an Anti-Peasant Mode of Development, Joseph Stromborg (1995)
  • Health Care and Radical Monopoly, Kevin A. Carson (2010)
  • Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty as We Know It, Charles W. Johnson (2007)

 

Part Eight: Freed-Market Regulation: Social Activism and Spontaneous Order

 

  • Regulation Red Herring: Why There’s No Such Thing as an Unregulated Market, Sheldon Richman (2009)
  • We Are Market Forces, Charles Johnson (2009)
  • Platonic Productivity, Roderick T. Long (2004)
  • Libertarianism and Anti-Racism, Sheldon Richman (2010)
  • Aggression and the Environment, Mary Ruwart (1993/2003)
  • The Clean Water Act versus Clean Water, Charles W. Johnson (2010)
  • Context-Keeping and Community Organizing, Sheldon Richman (2010)

13 comments

  1. This sounds like the people who criticize occupywallstreet because some of the people have weird or outrageous opinions / signs.

    Either we’re building something of value — something that can transcend the individual eccentricities and deviations — or we’re just an agglomeration of wierdos. I understand if people think it’s more the latter than the former, but I think the Markets Not Capitalism book is a testament to the fact that those people are not viewing the whole picture.

    Respectfully. :)

  2. Just as a curiosity, what kind of response do works like Markets Not Capitalism get from the Left, meaning the pro-state or anti-market factions of the Left? Or has there ever been any response? I know what the orthodox libertarians think.

  3. Dean Baker from the Center for Economic Policy Research is sort of that intermediate thinker between Left libertarianism and conventional leftist thinking. Hardcore marxists usually dislike anything relating to letting markets run unregulated, but regular Democratic thinking people are usually down with Baker’s strategy.

  4. “I’d say the same thing about them that I’ve long said about the anarcho-capitalists: read their scholarly work but ignore their movement.”

    This is sort of my perspective, but only because my primary goal in radical politics is to advance the secession of Black communities from the urban plutocratic elite. I’m not as hostile to policy work as some hardcore “porcupines” are simply because of the reality of the situation.

    That being said, I am not one to tell people to stop any movement they identify with. If the Libertarian Left has a large following that is getting sh!t done then I don’t see anything wrong with it. They have a right to freedom just as everybody else.

  5. “That being said, I am not one to tell people to stop any movement they identify with. If the Libertarian Left has a large following that is getting sh!t done then I don’t see anything wrong with it. They have a right to freedom just as everybody else.”

    Yes, that’s my position as well.

    It’s unfortunate that there is much acrimony between different types of anarchists and libertarians. I hope that at some point in the future a new wave of anarchist leaders will emerge that can be a force for reconciliation among all of the different factions towards the idea of building a unified resistance to the state.

    That’s not how I really see my own role. I see myself more as a dissident who identifies weaknesses in the anarchist milieu and attempts to find alternatives. For better or worse, that means I end up being a divisive figure rather than a unifying one. I find that regrettable, however necessary it may be.

  6. As I wrote back in 2003:

    “I have argued that populism is likely to be the proper means to anarchism.(68) Hence, what I am proposing is a new strategic paradigm and, to a certain extent, a new school of anarchist thought that I call “anarcho-populism”. This new brand of anarchism would draw on the other schools in various ways. The classical anarchism originally developed by Proudhon would be its foundation. Like anarcho-socialism, anarcho-populism would be anti-capitalist and pro-class struggle. Like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-populism would endorse property, markets and the independent sector as an antidote to statism, corporatism and welfarism. Along with leftist-anarchists, this new anarchist tendency would support political freedom and cultural self-determination for racial minorities, women, gays and the like but would not seek to mindlessly glorify or privilege these groups or demonize white males. Along with primitivists and eco-anarchists, anarcho-populism would seek to preserve the natural environment, but without the misanthropy and anti-tech hysteria of much modern environmentalism. Like national-anarchists, anarcho-populism would endorse the right of traditional racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups to self-preservation and political sovereignty and cross-cultural, cross-ideological alliances against the NWO, but would seek to branch out into “mainstream” society rather than seek out reclusive isolation from the modern world. Revolution rather than withdrawal. On cultural matters, anarcho-populism would endorse organic society, evolved and historic traditions and natural evolution in opposition to either “cultural conservatism” (which implies stasis or chauvinism) or “progressivism” (with its incipient universalism or utopianism).”

    That’s how it should be.

    Imagine if the anarchist movement in North American had a several million person fourth generation militia similar to Hezbollah in function but possessing the ideological paradigm outlined above. We could essentially replace the MIC as the common defense forces of the continent and purge the PIGS in the process. That would automatically guarantee us victory all by itself.

  7. “because my primary goal in radical politics is to advance the secession of Black communities from the urban plutocratic elite.”

    Lately, I’ve been thinking a bit more about how to go about cultivating the relationship between a modern anarchist movement and ethno-nationalist or regional self-determinist movements. I think a good model to draw on is the relationship between Spanish anarchism and the Basque separatists and the Catalan regionalists, all of whom were allies against Franco during the civil war.

    Translating that into our own situation, I’d say African-Americans and American Indians are basically North America’s equivalent of the Basques as historic minority groups with a lengthy history of repression and marginalization by the state, ruling class, and mainstream society generally. Likewise, regional self-determination movements in Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, Vermont, Cascadia, etc are the equivalent of the Catalans.

    Of course, I’d compare the forces that I describe as collectively comprising “totalitarian humanism” as the equivalent of the Communists and bourgeois liberals who tried to suppress the anarchist revolution at the beginning of the war. In some ways, contemporary “far right” groups like the paleocons, populists, survivalist militias, etc. might be comparable to the Carlists or the Falangists. Erick von Kuehnelt-Leddihn once pointed out that the Spanish “far right” which tended to be pro-Franco and the anarchists actually had lots of ideas in common, such as federalism, agrarianism, cooperativism, and anti-liberalism. The big source of the conflict seems to have been anticlericalism, which is a non-issue in a society with church/state separation. Perhaps something like the Cercle Proudhon might be a force for reconciliation between the two sides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercle_Proudhon In many ways, I see contemporary movements like N-A, AltRight, ENR, etc. as equivalents of the Cercle Proudhon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s