Rothbard, Anarcho-Communism, and the Individual
Alexander S. Peak

20 November 2007

Introduction

Murray N. Rothbard, in the January 1st, 1970 edition of The Libertarian Forum (vol. II, no. 1), presents a scathing review of the then-growing trend of anarcho-communism among the counter-culture.

Without a doubt, Rothbard felt this review was necessary, not as a means of preventing any collaboration of efforts between anarchists of the capitalist and communist persuasions, but rather as a warning to anarchists of the former persuasion not to get swept up by the latter.  Unfortunately, by focusing on his capitalist audience, he fails to address certain facts about radical libertarianism which may be of concern to communist readers.

Background

According to Leonard P. Liggio and Rothbard, libertarianism began as a purely left-wing political philosophy, evolving out of the classical liberal tradition.  Unfortunately, according to their analysis, this fact has become confused by the introduction of socialism, which they viewed to be a confused, middle-of-the-road philosophy which attempted to achieve the goals of the classical liberals, e.g. prosperity and peace, through the means of old conservatism, i.e. the state.  As socialism rose to prominence and fraudulently took the mantle of The Left, libertarians found themselves in the odd position of making a strategic alliance with their old enemies, The Right.

But, over time, these libertarians began adopting qualities of the right, leading invariably to the confusion still surviving today that libertarianism was, itself, somehow a rightist ideology.  In short, libertarianism began to lose its identity and libertarians began to shed their radical approach to Liberty and Justice in favour of, well, conservative ideals.

As conservatism began to shed its libertarian qualities, Rothbard, who at the time saw himself as an Old Rightist, began to re-analyse his relation to the right, and adopted the left/right analysis developed by Liggio.  Rothbard began to see the libertarian/right alliance for what it was: nothing more than a strategic alliance that had run its course.  He invariably began to develop an alliance with the left, or more precisely, what was at that time called the New Left.  The New Left had some quite libertarian qualities, such as opposition to the Vietnam War and the draft, to bureaucracy and centralisation of state power, and to the subjugation of the individual.

It’s important to note that Rothbard saw the strategic alliance with the New Left as only that: strategic.  There were still places of disagreement, naturally, but where the two camps agreed, they could combine their forces.  Because Rothbard had seen how libertarians, when allying with the right, had begun to lose their own identity and merge in philosophy with the conservatives, he feared the same could happen with the left.  Thus Rothbard says, “It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one’s own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.”

The Allure of Anarcho-Communism

By 1970, Rothbard feared that this was happening: that libertarians were being absorbed by the left.  At the same time, he was seeing the New Left break apart, and yielding two general groups: Marxist-Stalinists and anarcho-communists.

Rothbard’s scathing review of anarcho-communism, therefore, was written primarily with the intent to keep free-market libertarians in the free-market camp.  He does this by aptly pointing out the errors in thinking committed by anarcho-communists.  And there are many.

My general complaint with Rothbard’s essay is that it fails to stress correctly how anarcho-capitalists would address a situation in which hoards were turning voluntarily to anarcho-communism.

Rothbard writes,

The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary.  Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.  Or would they?  Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future.  Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.  Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 1930’s, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money.  None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

The point Rothbard makes here shouldn’t be ignored.  There is always the possibility that those who have the most influence after the anarcho-communist revolution will be just as authoritarian as state communists, and will use aggression to seize the property of those who have not consented or volunteered to engage in communal ownership.

What is unfortunate is that Rothbard fails to acknowledge the libertarian approach to those anarcho-communists who truly are committed to voluntaryism.

Mutual Fear

It’s worth noting that, in the same way we in the capitalist camp have reason to fear corruption and authoritarianism from anyone in the communist camp, those in the communist camp feel that they have every reason to fear corruption and authoritarianism from our camp as well.  We look to the communist side and see, for the most part, the actions of state communists.  We see theft, we see coercion, we see slaughter.  But, if those currently advocating anarcho-communism truly do dedicate themselves to voluntaryism, then we in the anarcho-capitalist camp, despite believing that the voluntary communists are starving themselves, have absolutely no ethical opposition to their engagement in communism.

In the same way that we look to communism and, seeing it in its statist form, react with just indignation, so too do many in the communist camp look to capitalism and, seeing it in its current statist form, become leery that we anarcho-capitalists would impose the same sort of aggression and corruption after the fall of the state that they see now.

Rothbard himself argued eloquently against statist capitalism, pointing out the vastness of the difference between free-market capitalism and statist capitalism.  “The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation,” wrote Rothbard in 1973.  It is not unreasonable to assume that many anarcho-communists are not as aware as we are as to our own opposition to the current neo-mercantilist establishment.  And, as a result of this lack of knowledge, suspicion arises about the intentions of anarcho-capitalists.

This is, I believe, one of the main reasons certain “left”-anarchists have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that anarcho-capitalists are indeed anarchists.  They, in short, get hung up on the word “capitalist,” and apply their pre-conceived notions about the term that are influenced nearly entirely by the state.

We know we are voluntaryists, that we would never aggress against communists in a stateless society who opt to engage at will in communism.  But do they know that?

Unfortunately, Rothbard’s essay says nothing on the matter, and therefore gives no comfort to the communist who reads it that his/her freedom would remain intact in the event that we anarcho-capitalists get our way.  This is the main defect in the work.

Any communist who, under the guise of anarchism, opted to seize the property of those who did not consent to engagement in communism would be, Rothbard is right to believe, not an anarchist at all.  Such persons are villains, not only to capitalists, but to anarchists of any stripe.  But what of communists dedicated to voluntaryism?

The Laissez-Faire Society

In a truly free society, one in which the non-aggression axiom was held supreme, one in which each individual is left truly free to pursue his or her ideals unmolested, there would invariably be some who, preferring communism, would opt to share with one another the product of their labour.  There would, likewise, be advocates of capitalism who choose to keep the product of their labour.  Some would join voluntary unions.  Others would not.

Those wishing to live communally may wish to form anarcho-communist communities.  Others may wish to live among society, along-side the advocates of capitalism, and join anarcho-communist associations wherein the product of their labour and the capital goods which they were able to peaceably acquire would be shared amongst all who joined.

Most importantly of all, not one of us anarcho-capitalists would force the communists to strive to own more than his or her fellow man.  None of us would force the communists to have a price system for the goods shared within their associations and communities.  In short, none of us would use aggression.

Sure, we may argue with our communist brethren.  We may inform them that their system is doomed to failure.  We may point out to them that they are allowing themselves to starve while the competition we advocates of capitalism employ propel us to sustainability and higher standards of living.

But we’d never aggress!  We could do all we wanted, so long as we never forced anyone to leave an association or to re-enter into capitalist life.

The anarcho-communists, likewise, would be free to argue with us.  They’d be free to tell us that we are letting ourselves be exploited.  They’d be free to encourage us to join their associations or their unions or their communes.  Further, they’d be free to impose whatever sort of regulations they wanted on those in their associations and their unions and their communes, so long as they allowed people to leave at any time.

But they’d never, in this truly free society, aggress!  They could do whatever they wanted, so long as they never forced anyone to participate in communist life.

As this piece is not directed at the non-anarchist, I will not herein take the time to explain why a voluntaryist society is not utopian, or what sort of structure would be put in place of the state to ensure the punishment of crime (i.e. the use of aggression).  There is plenty of material out there already on the subject for anyone truly interested.  (I’d recommend The Market for Liberty or For a New Liberty.)

Suffice it to say that in a truly free society, a voluntaryist society, communists would have nothing to fear from capitalists (other than that we might convince the masses, through free speech, that we’re right).  Likewise, assuming the anarcho-communists are willing to truly dedicate themselves to voluntaryism, we advocates of capitalism would have nothing to fear from communists (other than the possibility that they might convince the masses, through free speech, to join a communist association).

Conclusion

I agree with every argument Rothbard gives for why anarcho-communism will work poorly.  I agree with him that it will cause starvation.  I even agree with him that we should be weary of self-proclaimed anarcho-communists who, under the guise of anarchism, will impose tyrannical regulations on the whole of society.  But I am left disappointed by Rothbard’s essay insofar as he fails to inform those anarcho-communists who do dedicate themselves to voluntaryist communism that we are, despite our differences, their allies.

Any communist who aims to use the idea of anarcho-communism to impose authoritarian controls over all individuals, including those who do not consent, is no anarchist.  But to those anarcho-communists dedicated to true freedom, dedicated to non-aggression, let me reach my hand out to you.  We are allies in the struggle against statism.