Anarchist and Socialist Semantics and Historicity (Or, Why Does Stephan Kinsella Act As If Individualist Anarchism Never Existed? Redux)

Over at his Austro-Athenian Empire blog, Roderick Long makes an excellent post in response to Stephan Kinsella's dogmatic anarcho-semantic insistance about the meaning of the term "socialism" (which was in response to a Kevin Carson post at C4SS).

These sort of "anarcho-semantic" battles are way beyond the point of being old and tiresome from my perspective. As far as I am concerned, it's an issue that is already resolved once one becomes adequately aquainted with the history of both anarchism and socialism in both overlapping and constrasting terms, and if one concentrates on the actual ideas that people have as opposed to one's preconception of the meanings of the often ambiguous labels that people attach to themselves. In this recent anarcho-semantics exchange, it appears that Stephan Kinsella is acting dogmatically in this regard, since he is refusing to recognize the distinction between his prejudice and other people's meanings of their terms.

The fact of the matter is that both "capitalism" and "socialism" have multiple meanings throughout history and across the nuances of the spectrum of political ideology, and that "anarchism" could be said to (1) have an ambiguous relationship with both of them and (2) be distinguished from and opposed to both of them, depending on the particular meaning used. At a minimum, it is more accurate to separate them both into authoritarian and libertarian senses, hence why some anarchists (myself included) have come to use the dual-terminology of "state-socialism vs. social anarchism" and "state-capitalism vs. free markets". As far as the history of anarchism goes, the distinction between anarchism and state-socialism was made most clear by Benjamin Tucker's writting "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ".

Part of what is frustrating about some people's insistance on using a single meaning for these terms (and verbally beating those who don't use such meanings over the head with them) is that quite a few people simply cannot be single-handedly defined by either term when it comes down to the nitty gritty details of people's personal philosophies. Furthermore, the entire tradition of individualist anarchism in particular, which in some ways could be seen as a bridge between "social" and "market" anarchism, is neglected in the crossfire between the dogmatists of "both sides". There is a false dillema at play between accepting one side of the semantic equation over the other and between associating with "free market economics" vs. associating with "social justice" and "the left". This false dillema between choosing "the social" and "the economic" (and the modern cliches of "left" and "right") is arguably directly a product of mainstream media discourse, and to strictly choose either side of it is to be swayed by obscurantism.

The rigid meanings insisted on by the dogmatists simply break down. As far as those who act as if libertarian anarchism must be explicitly framed in terms of anti-leftism go, there is nothing about many of the social causes that are often associated with "the left" that inherently contradicts free market economics and individual liberty. Neither is there anything about worker-based models of buisiness that inherently violate the concept of free competition or free association. It inherently becomes a question of means, and insofar as voluntary and cooperative means are favored then there is nothing that a libertarian can principally object to. At best, a free market libertarian can only oppose such things on a personal level or out of pragmatic objections, but the idea that its incompatible with a free society by definition is simply wrong, and the idea that socialism qua socialism can be absolutely categorically separated from anarchism is so ahistorical as to be laughable.

As a matter of historical fact, anarchism was associated with "socialism" from its modern inception and the ahistorical term "anarcho-capitalism" did not come about until well over a century after anarchism had formally formed in political philosophy. As another matter of historical fact, "socialism" has never had a singular meaning. In the 19th century, "socialism" was a broad label that refered to numerous movements overlapping with, growing out of and splitting from classical liberalism. Numerous early 19th century socialists were associated with classical liberalism more than anything else and were often opponents of communism, and philosophical anarchism was initially the daughter of both "socialism" and "liberalism" taken to radical anti-authoritarian conclusions. The concept of "socialism" did not begin or end with Karl Marx, nor are Marxist and state-socialist doctrines the only currently existing types.

On the other hand, dogmatic anarcho-communists who more or less insist that anything other than a communist model for all of society is incompatible with anarchism and reject the entire tradition of individualist anarchism out of hand as some sort of "petite burgouesie liberal co-option" are simply being ahistorical (for one thing, mutualism and individualist anarchism predate anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism by at least a number of decades). If one actually reads the writtings of anarcho-communists such as Emma Goldman, there are actually certain individualistic tendencies, and even Max Stirner-influenced or "egoistic" tendencies. Insofar as certain modern anarcho-communists want to aschew individualism wholesale, I think that they are actually fairly out of step with classical anarchist traditions. So the problem of dogmatism certainly cuts "both ways".

"Socialism" does not have a singular meaning. It could refer to "state ownership of the means of production" or "state ownership of property" and it could refer to "worker ownership of the means of production". These are clearly not the same thing: if the state owns the means of production or property in general, it should be clear that "the state" is not "the workers". Even the typical dichotomy between "public" and "private" property is highly dubious: despite the fact that it is often called "public", property owned by the state is clearly not actually owned by "the public"; at best, in actual fact it is controlled by an oligarchy or bureaucracy that grants limited access at its own discretion to "the public". "Private property" is also ambiguous, since it could refer to (1) a state-determined legal title to property (2) a territorial claim of absolute dominion (3) the product of labor and voluntary exchange and (4) any degree of exclusivity, at which point even a commune could be considered "private" in relation to that which is outside of it.

"Capitalism" does not have any more of a stable meaning in common political discourse than "socialism". If we want to be technical, it could refer to anything from the default condition of an economy in the absence of state intervention (at which point, all anti-statists would have to be called "capitalists", including social anarchists, which seems rather bizarre) to a minarchist state explicitly founded for the purpose of legally defining property titles to an all-out corporate state. By the very least, anarchists qua anarchists have historically rejected the latter two senses of the term "capitalism", with an anti-statist analysis that points out the role that state intervention played in the formation and functionality of modern "capitalist" states. Even as defined by classical liberal economists like Ludwig Von Mises, "capitalism" is a state system for the vague purpose of "protecting property" (I say that it's vague because that can mean many different things depending on what is meant or in terms of what actually occurs).

Typically, anarcho-capitalists will insist that "capitalism" is a stateless economy by definition (which, again, is a very ahistorical and minority definition of "capitalism"), and conclude that "state-capitalism is a contradiction in terms", deflecting all criticisms of "capitalism" on this basis. Likewise, various "socialists" (state-socialist and anarchist alike) will often insist that "communism" is a stateless classless society by definition, and therefore Stalinist Russia is not really communism. It's important to note that this manifests itself on "both sides": an ideal definition clashes with a definition based on the reality of the systems that are commonly called by those names. Hence, of course self-proclaimed free market capitalists are going to deny that a free market is the same thing as currently existing mixed economies (leaving aside vulgar libertarian tendencies, that is) and of course communists are going to deny that a totalitarian dictatorship is "true communism". In terms of the reality of the systems called by those names, manifested as state systems, anarchists qua anarchists are opposed to both of them.

Part of what this all come down to are unfortunate tendencies to be ignorant of other people's political philosophies, and apparently libertarians and anarchists are no less guilty of this than any other group. Indeed, I can attest to it on a personal level: when I initially became a hardline anarcho-capitalist, I was ignorant about the history of anarchism and I accepted a semantic paradigm that was unecessarily devisive and narrow. Then I actually did my homework and that semantic paradigm shattered, which lead to the collapse of various dichotomies and various cases of synthesis at the conceptual level. I ceased to think of anarchism as if it is a singular political system in and of itself (hence the discovery of anarchism without adjectives, which is the only thing that could be considered "the true plumb-line"). On the other hand, my understanding of libertarianism was enriched by the potential conceptual reconcilations with "the left" (and yes, "socialism") that can occur once such a rigid paradigm gives way to one with more depth.