Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Advocates Worker Ownership

If you hear someone yelling the phrase "property is theft," you might intuitively label him as a communist or as an economic collectivist. However, many libertarian bloggers and blog commentators challenge this assumption.

First coined by a 19th century mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, contemporary mutualists and Rothbardian market anarchists continue to repeat this motto. Even that this aphorism sounds absurd at first, they generally claim that Proudhon did not meant "property is theft" in the literal sense; they claim that Proudhon referred it to the property stolen by the state. Therefore, they claim that merely "semantics" caused this terminological conflict. A blogger called "Brainpolice," in a post titled Remembering Proudhon at Polycentric Order, postulated this:

There is also a context in which Proudhon was very much in favor of private or individual property, viewing it as an indispensible [sic] counterweight to the state.

A lot of market anarchists therefore asserted that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon favors property, and that he used "property as theft" as a rhetoric to attract readers. Andrew's post and the commentators at this blog post unanimously cited Brainpolice's assertion without even reading the primary sources.

However, if we take a closer look at what Proudhon meant by "property is theft," Brainpolice got it all wrong. In Proudhon's treatise What is Property?, he advocates the "possession" or the "use-and-occupancy" theory of property. Proudhon, therefore, as he said, rejects sticky property (Lockean property), or the perpetual ownership of property:

So that in society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor would be the right of occupancy, -- the right of property. (Page 124)

Therefore, Proudhon used "property is theft" to mean that "sticky property is theft."

Brainpolice probably got this idea from Brad Spangler's post on Proudhon, which Spangler in turn got it from this web page. If Brainpolice took that idea from Spangler, then he certainly did popularize Spangler's claim to misrepresent Proudhon. Brainpolice claimed that Proudhon merely opposes state privileges on property, but advocates sticky property just like how the Rothbardian market anarchists do.

Also, in contrast to the popular opinion, Proudhon actually rejected "the fruits of our labor" as a justification for property. He repeats this position in Chapter 3 of What is Property. Proudhon only justified property by "possession" or use-and-occupancy.

Furthermore, Proudhon used "property is impossible" to mean his theory of primitive accumulation. Proudhon argued that in a society ruled by sticky property, over time, a few hands will eventually concentrate nearly all property. He argued that these proprietors will then rent out their property to serfs. Therefore Proudhon actually used "property is impossible" to mean that "sticky property will lead to feudalism, with the poor propertyless (i.e. impossible for the poor to own property)." Proudhon demonstrated this in Chapter 4 in What is Property:

Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money, &c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (the repairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which he exchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion. In short, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as payment for a loan) is an act of property, -- a robbery. (Page 167)

Many market anarchists blindly follow Brainpolice's authority for his claims. In the past, Brainpolice, in a comment on his website, dogmatically claimed that Mikhail Bakunin actually uses the phrase "collectivist anarchism"; and that Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker actually use the phrase "individualist anarchism" to describe themselves. We have also refuted this. We have dispelled these misconceptions.

The Messy Definitions of "Left-Wing" and "Right-Wing"

On the web, libertarians occurrently conflict with each other on the definitions of a few terms. We observed that these conflicts start from the mistaken and confusing definitions of the terms left-wing, and right-wing. We, in attempt to revolve this conflict, normatively propose more consistent definitions of these two terms. While no definitions of these terms accurately reflects the historical usage, our normative approach will in attempt to solve this problem by devising the original definition, along with a brief historical analysis on how the definitions changed its meanings today.

Libertarians and agorists mistakenly label themselves as revolutionary or leftist. This leads to great problems, and frequently cause confusions of the terms left and right. Unlike our previous attempts, we decide to find non-empirical definitions of the terms. This will, therefore, provide a consistent resemblance of the terms. We, in attempt to clarify the definitions, wrote a series of arguments formulating consistent definitions of radical, revolutionary, left-wing and right-wing.

The first section starts in distinguishing between the terms radical and revolutionary. In this section, we will refute the common misconception of the synonymy of these two terms. In the second section, we will devise simpler and more consistent definitions of the terms left and right, building up on the conclusions in the first section. Additionally, we will analyze the common mistakes and confusions of the terms, especially pertaining to the minarchists and the agorists. In concluding the argument, we will propose a fourth section, dealing with the historical mix-up and the origins of the confusions. Lastly, we will provide an appendix exemplifying the application of the newly defined consistent terms, while refuting the popular misconceptions of the meanings of these terms.

The Terms Radical and Revolutionary

Popular opinion often conflate the terms radical and revolutionary. While, on the surface, these terms appear similar, a we will argue that a significant distinction exists.

We notice that the terms left-wing has similar ideas as in radical and revolutionary. In order to isolate the distinguishing attributes from each of these three terms, we must find concise definitions for each of these terms.

We will use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to define the terms right-wing and left-wing.(webster-left) In contrast to other dictionaries, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary appears more historically accurate. We justify this from its accurate entry on the definition of mercantilism.(webster-mercantilism)

According to the commonly-accepted definitions, right-wing means status quo or status quo ante. Left-wing means radical.

The terms status quo and status quo ante, which appears as opposites of the revolutionary and radical. However, we find this as false. To demonstrate this, we will argue that there can exist revolutionaries that support the status quo ante. We will use Burkean conservatism, the traditional form of conservatism, to prove this.

Those who oppose the American Revolution and the French Revolution, labeled Burkean conservatives, opposes radical change. Burkean conservatism adores experience as one of the primary tenets of its reformist philosophy. It claims that experience, or historical implementations, demonstrates the feasibility of the ideology. Therefore, Burkean conservatism only accepts ideologies successfully implemented in real-life. A past or the current implementation of the ideology demonstrates the feasibility of the ideology. They advocate certain status quo or status quo ante of the ideology implemented.

Thus, we can consistently define right-wing as the status quo or the status quo ante.

Karl Hess', in attempt to devise the terms left and right, labeled Joseph Stalin as right-wing. We will, below, refute that claim.

Authoritarian socalists do not want to revert to the status quo or status quo ante. The ideologues claim its ideology as radical because it continuously tries to invent innovative solutions to implement a workable version of communism.

As we showed theory as much more important than implementation,(TheoryAndImplementation) we should view intent much more important than the result. We could all agree that the result of communism pertains to the status quo and the status quo ante, since all implementations of communism results the same old failure.

But the intent of communism, as an ideology, pertains to its radicalness and opposes the status quo and the status quo ante. Communists want to implement new workable versions of communism resembling nothing to the historical attempts of communism. Therefore, we should define communism as opposing the status quo and the status quo ante.

We had argued that the theory or intent, not the implementation or result, determines the fundamental attributes of any philosophy. Because of the radical intent of communism, we must classify communism as left-wing, as in the above sense.

Right-wing means the status quo or the status quo ante. Left-wing means radical ideas.

Therefore, we should not claim left-wing authoritarianism, in the radical authoritarianism sense, as an oxymoron.

Both of the terms, even formally defined, contain ambiguity. The left-wing originally meant the opposition to the status quo. The left-wing includes the counter-revolutionary authoritarians and the radical revolutionary authoritarians.

However, an ideology labeled as radical does not necessary imply the ideology as revolutionary. Two types of radicalism exist: the revolutionary type and the reformist type. Radical reformists tend to hold radical intentions and principles, but does not necessary support drastic revolution in practice. Contrastingly, radical revolutionaries tend to support radical intentions and drastic revolution in practice.

These two terms, however, tend to get conflated, since the terms radical and revolutionary often gets associated. Those who have radical beliefs tend to support revolutionary means to achieve it, and those who support revolution tend to hold a radical opposition to the status quo.

But we should emphasize that we should not view two these two terms, radical and revolutionary, as necessary correlated. Some radicals oppose revolution, and some revolutionaries do not hold radical beliefs. The political anarcho-capitalists and the democratic socialists hold radical views but oppose revolution. Conversely, the counter-revolutionary reactionaries and the theocrats support revolution but do not hold radical views.

By the above conclusions, we have found a more consistent and concise definition of radical and revolutionary.

• The term radical means philosophies whose intent support ideologies not implemented in the past or in the current situation. It therefore opposes the status quo or the status quo ante, the defining ideas for right-wing.
• The term revolutionary means those who favor direct and immediate methods in implementing the ideology in practice, as opposed to politics or reformism. The term revolutionary does not necessary correlate with radicalness or left-wing ideology.
• The term left-wing, if defined consistently, merely means a synonym for radical.
• The term right-wing, if defined consistently, merely means a synonym for the status quo or the status quo ante.

The Terms Left-Wing and Right-Wing

We could formulate the left-wing and right-wing versions of libertarianism. The right-wing libertarian supports the status quo ante, or the old model of classical liberalism implemented after the American Revolution. The left-wing libertarian opposes the status quo and the status quo ante, therefore opposes the American Revolution and all of the quasi-libertarian societies implemented in the past. The left-wing libertarian supports radical notions of libertarianism never implemented in the past, and denies that any currently-existing society as libertarian. The left-wing libertarians, for example, denies Medieval Iceland or Somalia as libertarian societies.

We should emphasize that the term left-wing, a synonym for radical, does not necessary imply revolutionary. Hence, the left-wing libertarian, by definition, may support reformism.

Coincidentally, some of the self-identified "left"-libertarians, such as Kevin A. Carson, Roderick T. Long, and Charles Johnson, actually do support reformism.(TheLeftLibertarianStrategy)

We should also discredit the term radical right or right-wing radical as an oxymoron. Right-wing means a philosophy based on the status quo or the status quo ante. The term left-wing means the opposite. Left-wing philosophies does not base on the status quo or the status quo ante. Left-wing philosophies bases on innovative, radical ideas not implemented in history. Therefore, the term radical right has the two words meaning opposites.

Most of the self-identified "agorists" actually do not, by themselves, practice agorism. We can label them as theoretical agorists. Theoretical agorists include David Z., FSK, and others in the "left"-libertarian spectrum. Theoretical agorists frequently impose guilt trips on other theoretical agorists for not practicing agorism, even that they, themselves, do not practice agorism in the first place. While most self-identified "agorists" do not practice agorism, they do have the same radical beliefs as the practical agorists. Hence, we can label both the theoretical and the practical agorists as radical libertarians.

However, we cannot label the theoretical agorists as revolutionary libertarians. The theoretical agorists do not practice direct action, but impose guilt trips on others for not practicing agorism. The practical agorists, in contrast, do practice agorism. So we can only label the practical agorists as revolutionary libertarians, not the theoretical agorists.

In summary, we should label theoretical agorists as non-revolutionary libertarians and label practical agorists as revolutionary libertarians. But we can label both the theoretical and practical types as radical libertarians.

"Left"-Libertarianism and Politics

Historically, the agorist movement classified anyone who supports reformism or political methods as right-wing. The "left"-libertarians often claim that radicals, by definition, must oppose politics. We will discredit this.

Some libertarians may have radical intentions and may strongly oppose the status quo, but resort to using political methods and reformism anyway. They believe that reformism and politics can bring about this process, without revolution.

As we often conclude that using reformism and politics does not change anything other than the status quo, the result or implementation appears to coincide with the right-wing, a term meaning the status quo.

However, the determination of the philosophy depends on its intentions more than the implementation. A "left"-libertarian may strongly oppose the status quo but resort to political methods and reformism. Because the "left"-libertarians intended to exert radicalness, radical political libertarianism falls in the left-wing.

We should note that political libertarianism does not necessarily oppose the left, so there may exist political libertarians that may fall in the right.

Similarly, as discussed above, some right-libertarians support a non-political counter-revolution to go back two hundred years ago. But these libertarians, even if they oppose politics, do not fall in the left, since they oppose radicalism.

Problems with Secularism and Traditionalism

A secularist can have traditional beliefs, since traditional values does not require religion. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines left-wing as supporting secularism.(webster-secular) Therefore, in order to classify a person as having left-wing beliefs, he or she must hold radical (but not necessary revolutionary) ideas, and also support secular values. As we see secularism, by definition, as compatible to traditionalism, the secular left, by definition, does not necessarily oppose traditionalism.

Similarly, a traditionalist attempts to believe in traditional values, such as morals, ethics, and religion. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines right-wing, in addition to supporting the status quo or the status quo ante, as espousing traditionalism.(webster-traditional) But, as showed above, traditionalism does not necessitate religion. Concepts generally associated with traditionalism include hierarchy, authority, patriotism, nationalism, paternalism(paternalism-def) and religion.

So according to the above argument, both the left and the right both may hold traditional values. The left and the right only differ by religion, not tradition.

Leftism, socialism and economic interventionism

Prior to Karl Marx, both of the minarchists and the economic planners identify themselves as socialists. However, as the Marxist movement enlarged, the definitions changed. Because the Marxists had always referred socialism to economic planning, socialism got associated with economic planning, and then the denotation of socialism has changed to only represent economic planning.

Marxists oppose religion and support economic planning. Therefore, the term left-wing, after the Marxist movement, had become to mean something resembling Marxism, with the opposition to religion with the support for economic planning. Contemporary dictionaries define left-wing as a secularist, economic interventionist ideology, possibly due to the Marxists' identification with the left.

However, we should simply reject the terms left and right as package-deals. The left does not really support revolution, and many of the "left"-libertarians, as said above, support reformism. As argued above, the left also does not oppose traditionalism. The population has redefined left-wing as supporting socialism and economic interventionism, mostly of the Marxist movement. It makes the terms left and right as watered-down propagandistic euphemisms.

Appendix: Authoritarianism Example

We will briefly use the term radical and revolutionary to demonstrate the usage of these two terms. We will use authoritarianism as the example.

Two branches of authoritarianism:

• Revolutionary authoritarianism
• Anti-revolutionary or status quo authoritarianism

Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Two branches of revolutionary authoritarianism:

• Counter-revolutionary or status quo ante authoritarianism
• Radical (innovative) revolutionary authoritarianism

Since all these two support revolution.

Anti-Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Examples (in an anarcho-capitalist POV):

• The U.S. Republican Party
• The U.S. Democratic Party

Counter-Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Some authoritarians propose the status quo ante, by revolution. Also called counter-revolutionary authoritarianism and status quo ante authoritarianism.

Examples (in an anti-minarchist anarcho-capitalist POV):

• The counter-revolution reactionaries
• Theocracy
• Monarchism
• Paleocensarvatism
• Ron Paul conservatism

Radical Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Some authoritarians do not propose to go back to any time period. They wish to implement an innovative version of authoritarianism that does not exist in the past.

Examples:

• Jacobin
• Stalinism
• Maoism
• Troskyism
• Nazism
• Fascism

The Historical Meanings of "Left-Wing" and "Right-Wing"

• The original left-wing understood as those who sat on the left side of the parliament and right-wing who sat on the right side. Because there is only one dimension, no one can be arranged optimally.
• The original left-wing composes of Democratic-Republicans, who oppose social, religious and military intervention and opposes spending. Supports states' rights.
• The original right-wing composes of Whigs, who were religious and support social, religious and military intervention and supports spending. Opposes states' rights.
• President Abraham Lincoln has defined the right-wing to support social and religious interventionism.
• Since the election of Woodrow Wilson, the left-wing has and supported social intervention such as prohibition.
• Since the elections of Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, the left-wing has supported military intervention and the right-wing has opposed military intervention.
• The elections of Herbert Hoover and FDR had defined the left-wing the pro-spending party and the right-wing as the anti-spending party.
• The Barry Goldwater campaign and the Civil Rights act in the 1960s made right-wing religious as the Southern Democrats distrusted the Democratic party for supporting it. The right-wing has redefined to support social interventionism.
• The Ronald Reagan campaign has defined the left-wing to oppose spending and the right-wing to support spending, all at the same amount of economic interventionism.
• Ronald Reagan has defined the left to support environmentalism and the right to oppose environmentalism.
• The two Iraq wars has defined the left-wing to oppose military intervention and the right-wing as military interventionist. The energy issue has defined both the left-wing and the right-wing to support environmentalism.

These events caused the vague notions of the left-wing and the right-wing as we use today.

How would the myriad political ideologies fit in just a one-dimensional spectrum? The political spectrum is not defined that way, the definition has induced from the empirical arrangement of French parliament. Groups of individuals sat next to each other in a way, while constrained by the one-dimensional parliament, to reduce tension between their neighbors. Because of the spatial closeness of the neighbors, the left-right spectrum forces one to join alliances with neighbors. The left-right spectrum arbitrarily forces a diverse array of ideologies to jam into a one-dimensional spectrum.

Many left-libertarians, particularily the ones who have a membership of Alliance of the Libertarian Left, would cite Karl Hess' or the left-libertarian's definition. However, his does not promote a solution because his inductive definition does not reflect the dynamic political spectrum. Words such as "left-libertarian" and "right-libertarian" seem vague.

---

Ramifications

No political "spectrum" can measure the "similarity" of one's ideology compared to others. The two-dimensional political spectrum is not an improvement over the one-dimensional one. To give an accurate representation of one's political views, it would require thousands of dimensions. But with thousands of dimensions, it would become impossible to compare your results with others. You cannot simply "match" your thousands of dimensions with another's thousands. Doing so would not give accurate results, since the more dimensions you match does not necessarily mean that you have closer views to him. The "dimensions" of the political spectrum are also picked arbitrarily, so it will give biased and "unmatchable" results.

A solution that we propose is neither left nor right. It is a simpler axis, one that Kel Weaver has proposed. It is simply anarchist or non-anarchist.

No definition of left-wing and right-wing that encompasses all its usages exist. Criticisms of leftism or rightism pertains to a specific stereotype listed below.

"Leftie" stereotypes anti-capitalism anti-corporation anti-corporatism anti-propertarianism anti-racism anti-religion blank slate class conflict collectivism cultural determinism dialecticism economic interventionism egalitarianism environmentalism equality forced integration group rights majority rule moral relativism multiculturalism nurture over nature pacifism pluralism political correctness polycentrism radical feminism religious intolerance reverse discrimination secularism social determinism tabula rasa tolerance welfare state

Right-Wing stereotypes anti-democracy authoritarianism capitalism colonialism conservatism cultural conservatism elitism family values fascism feudalism fundamentalism genetic determinism inegalitarianism inequality intolerance landlordism militarism monarchism monocentrism monoculturalism nationalism nature over nurture neo-Lockean theory of property paternalism plutocracy pro-corporation pro-corporatism protectionism psychological nativism religion social hierarchy social order status quo ante status quo traditionalism traditionalist authoritarianism uniformity warfare state

Because no formal definition of leftism and rightism exist, people often criticize the other wing using the equivocation fallacies. Left-wingers criticize the right-wing's cultural conservative stereotype when the right-wingers criticize the left's economic stereotypes. They do not even argue about the same thing. Often, the left and right will randomly switch the definitions of the terms to mean one of the above stereotypes, and result in a confusing, convoluted argument with no concrete definitions of the terms left and right.

I responded to the series of comments at Polycentric Order.

Cork said: Does it make any sense for left-libertarians to bash Hoppe but praise Proudhon, when the latter is far more culturally conservative?

Brainpolice used the term "left" in the sense of cooperative property rights, not to mean culturally liberal. He has posted a video defining "left" and "right." Cork replies to Brainpolice without understanding what he had meant.

Cork said: I don't want to give the impression that Proudhon is all bad, just because he had some nutty beliefs on cultural and political issues. For a proto-socialist, he was decent and relatively libertarian (well...at least in theory). He has some excellent quotes.

Brainpolice did not define "left-wing" and "right-wing" to distinguish cultural differences, he used them to distinguish economic differences, an in this case, property rights. He used "left-wing" to mean those supporting "loose" property rights and "right-wing to mean those opposing the "loose" property rights held by mutualists.

Brainpolice said: Furthermore, how can we possibly forget Gary North, who openly advocated a Christian theocracy as an anarcho-capitalist model? So spare me in your attempt to act like the libertarian right has some kind of highground.

BrainPolice has, once again, used the equivocation fallacy. He equivocated the term "right-wing" to represent theocracy, when he previously used the same term to represent those who "oppose" mutualist property rights.

Thus, I do not identify myself as either "left" nor "right," because the usage of these term often sprang up equivocation fallacies.

Scott said: Cork is clearly trolling.

Affixing the adverb "clearly" in this sentence not necessarily affirm accuracy of the predicate. Many individuals often abuse the word "clearly." For example, Statists will say that "the tax evader has clearly harmed people," "We clearly need a State," or "the drug dealer has clearly committed a 'crime'."

I oppose labeling, using, or calling yourself, or any other, as "left," "right," "anti-left" or "anti-right." This will instigate confusion. For example, by "anti-left," do you mean you oppose their economic stance or oppose their cultural liberalism? Well, the self-described "leftists" will interpret your statement as opposing both. Therefore, they will call you a "right-libertarian," and a culturally conservative bigot. The discussion will go on and on and go in a convoluted circle.

As shown, the usage of the terms "left" and "right" leads to equivocation fallacies. Therefore, we will propose eliminating all, each as every, instance of "left" and "right."

As similar in E-Prime, the term "to be" can easily get misused. Let us look at the similar case in E-Prime:

In principle, if not in practice, we agree that in some instances one could use forms of "to be" (in its auxiliary, existence, and location modes) without causing appreciable "semantic damage". Even so, most English teachers would agree that most of us overuse and misuse the verb, and that even a 75% reduction in its use would improve our writing and speaking skills. But why go to the extreme of trying to eliminate it totally? Because for better or worse, it looks like only an all-or-nothing approach to this problem works successfully. De Morgan, Santayana, Korzybski, and many general semanticists have warned against misuses of the verb like the "is" of identity, yet they continued to misuse it themselves!

So even if we carefully attempt to carefully use "left," it can easily get misused. For example, we identified four different definitions of "left-libertarianism":

• Charles Johnson defines "left-libertarianism" as "thick" libertarianism muddled with feminism and other cultural values, as supposedly shared by the Democratic Party. However, Johnson did the "hasty generalization" fallacy in doing that.
• Brainpolice defines "left"-libertarianism as cultural liberalism with anarchistic economics. However, on a YouTube video, he mysteriously redefines "left" and "right" as an economic spectrum.
• FSK defines a "left"-libertarian as an agorist.*
• Brad Spangler defines left-libertarianism as a revolutionary type of libertarianism and while opposing "vulgar libertarianism." This implies that left-libertarians must advocate mutualism or neo-mutualism.

We defined "left"-libertarianism a long time ago and many replied that we did not represent all "left-libertarians." I do not represent all of them because we defined "left-libertarianism" differently.

All statists, minarchists included, propose aggression on others. Statists only tinker with the Leviathan and parliamentarianistically waste their energies with political compromise.

The terms left-wing and right-wing are highly vague, and no definition exists. They are highly contextual, and can have completely different meanings hinging on the speaker's ideology and alliances.

Bibliography

\begin{thebibliography}{9}

\bibitem{webster-mercantilism}
 Anarcho-Mercantilism over Market Anarchism.
 2008.
 \emph{Anarcho-Mercantilist}
 \url{http://anarcho-mercantilist.blogspot.com/2008/10/anarcho-mercantilism-over-market.html}

\bibitem{webster-radical}
 Radical.
 2009.
 \emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical}

\bibitem{webster-revolution}
 Revolution.
 2009.
 \emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution}

\bibitem{webster-left}
 Left.
 2009.
 \emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left}

\bibitem{webster-right}
 Right.
 2009.
 \emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right}

\bibitem{webster-secular}
 Secular.
 2009.
 \emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular}

\bibitem{webster-traditional}
 Traditional.
 2009.
 \emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditional}

\bibitem{TheoryAndImplementation}
 We will discuss this in another article.

\bibitem{TheLeftLibertarianStrategy}
 The Left-Libertarian Strategy
 2008.
 \emph{Anarcho-Mercantilist}
 \url{http://anarcho-mercantilist.blogspot.com/2008/12/left-libertarian-strategy.html}

\bibitem{paternalism-def}
 Multiple, confusing definitions of \emph{paternalism} exist. In this case we mean to aggress others ``for their own good."

\end{thebibliography}

On FSK's blog:

If you're on your own blog, ignoring or calling out trolls is usually sufficient. For example, "[anarcho-mercantilist]" (see above) describes himself as "anti left-libertarian". If that's your philosophy, then why are you trolling here? If you believe that agorists are full of ****, then why are you wasting time reading this?

Anarcho-Mercantilism over Market Anarchism

Whenever I see the term market anarchism, I see an oxymoron. However, many anarchists do not notice this, and frequently use the term “market anarchism” over anarcho-capitalism, in blogs and web pages. They claim that the use of this term improves the term anarcho-capitalism, because the original definition of capitalism, as coined by Karl Marx, implies heavy state intervention. Thus, the so-called “left-libertarians” use the term market anarchism over anarcho-capitalism, and emphasize this as more consistent. Still, however, they have no knowledge that even the term “market anarchism” etymologically originates from collectivistic ideas.

Upon first looking at the term “market anarchism,” one first notices the word order. In question, one wonders why most individuals prefer to use the term “market anarchism” over “anarcho-marketeerism.” As in English grammar, the first term, “market,” implies an adjective, and the second term, “anarchism,” implies a noun. As one may notice, the term “market anarchism” implies it as a type of anarchism; the term “anarcho-marketeerism” implies it as a type of marketeerism. One may question the reason behind this distinction.

First, we will demonstrate the contradiction of “market anarchism.” This term, as shown above, implies it as a type of anarchism. It further suggests that a broader ideology, called “anarchism,” does not necessarily require a market. Thus, as “market anarchism” suggests, there exists an ideology, called “anarchism,” in which even market-bashing individuals may identify themselves as. These non-market ideologies might range from anarcho-communism to anarcho-collectivism, in which I deny the compatibility of these to anarchism at all. As some might say it, using the term “market anarchism” implies that you like all kinds of anarchism, including the collectivist types; and the adjective “market” before anarchism, implies merely a preference for a market system in anarchism.

Second, we notice that the term “market” does not function as an adjective. The term “market” functions as a noun. To confirm the grammatical correctness of English, two nouns may not position right next of each other. So, in a grammatician’s view, he or she would not consider “market anarchism” as grammatically correct.

Even though some may consider it ungrammatical, the “market anarchists,” rationally see the term as grammatical. They seem to view the term market before anarchism as an adjective. Since a clear distinction between nouns and adjectives does not exist,^[1] the “market anarchists” may still rationally view the term market as an adjective. Therefore, even if market functions as a noun, the market anarchists may still consider their ideology as compatible to “anarchism without adjectives.”

We have proven that using “market anarchism” seems to imply the individual supports “anarchism without adjectives.” However, we have not proven that using the term “market,” in any circumstance, implies a collectivist view.

We will first start defining the word market. The dictionary definition of market, in the general sense, means a public gathering of buyers and sellers. Seeing this definition, one would conclude that buying and selling equals trading, thus we may replace this phrase with trading. Also, as “public gathering” seems too concrete, we will replace it with “association,” which in turn, means “group of individuals.“

We have now redefined market in a more abstract sense, as “a group of individuals who trade.” We now have a formal definition of market.

We may now formally define a “black market” as “a group of individuals who trade outside state jurisdiction”; define “white market” as “a group of individuals who trade within state laws”; and define “free market” as “a group of individuals who trade freely” (as in both the positive and negative sense of freedom^[2]); and define “market” as “a group of individuals who trade within this world.“

As the dictionaries seem to define a market as “a group of individuals who trade,” then why should we use the word market when we may just use the word trade? After all, why do we not use “anarcho-trade” instead of “anarcho-market”?

We will instantaneously see the term “anarcho-market” as redundant, as the term market means “a group of individuals who trade.” Besides this, we will note a more important consequence of using the term “market” instead of “trade” after “anarcho.” One will eventually see the term “group” in the definition of market. One will further see that using “group” implies a collectivist mindset. “Anarcho-market” refers to a collectivist ideology, in which groups of individuals trade freely. “Anarcho-trade,” however, refers to free trade, unrestricted by intervention. One would simply abandon the term “anarcho-market” in favor of “anarcho-trade” to avoid the collectivistic denotation of the former term.

Upon abandoning the term “anarcho-market,” one would notice that “anarcho-market” requires “anarcho-trade” (as in free trade), but “anarcho-trade” does not require “anarcho-market.” Therefore, we will conclude “anarcho-trade” as a more general ideology than “anarcho-market”: the latter requires a group of individuals, while the former does not necessarily require a group of individuals.

To show this more clearly, the “market,” by definition, equals the sum of all trade relations. Similarly, as Austrian economists define society as the sum of all individuals, the market represents a society whereas trade represents the individual. Because the market would not exist without trade, and society would not exist without the individual, we should use “trade” instead of “market” where possible to avoid the collectivist denotation of market.

We have finished arguing that we should view “anarcho-trade” as more semantically correct than “market anarchism.” “Anarcho-trade,” however, does not seem like an ideology since the word “trade” functions as a verb, not a noun describing an ideology. We will show a solution using the controversial word “mercantile.“

If one sees “mercantilism,” he or she might refer it to a “protectionist ideology favoring high tariffs.” However, this shows only one definition of “mercantilism.” Prior to Adam Smith using “mercantile system” to refer to the protectionist system in the 18th century, mercantile meant anything related to merchants or trade. All mainstream dictionaries provide two definitions of “mercantilism,” the first one relating to commerce or trade, and the second one relating to the mercantile system. (The Webster and Random House dictionaries list the original meaning first, and the Encarta, Wordsmyth, WordNet and American Heritage dictionaries list the original meaning second.) Thus, in the original form, mercantile refers to a synonym for trade.

Therefore, we may interchangeably use “anarcho-trade” and “anarcho-mercantile.” Appending “-ism” to each would result in “anarcho-tradeism” and “anarcho-mercantilism,” respectively. However, since the word “tradeism” does not appear in any major dictionaries, we should use mercantilism instead. Hence, we should use “anarcho-mercantilism” and “anarcho-mercantilist” to refer to an ideology and a supporter of the ideology, respectively.

---

Footnotes

1. We show this on the type-token distinction. We cannot distinguish adjectives (types) and nouns (tokens).
2. We show that positive and negative liberty behave complementarily. Positive liberty: do any non-aggressive act without aggression. Negative liberty: do any non-aggression act with non-aggression.

---

Capitalism

I think the term "free market" has more ambiguity than "capitalism." Let us look at the three definitions of "free market":

1. The current corporatist system, as the mainstream media defines it.
2. A system based on "sticky" ownership of capital and land, as in the neo-Lockean sense.
3. A system based on occupancy-and-use of capital and land, as in the mutualistic sense.

In the anarchist blogosphere, both the mutualists and the "anarcho-capitalists" use "free market," which can cause some misrepresentations.

Both the mutualists and the "anarcho-capitalists" define "capitalism" as a free-market with neo-Lockean land ownership. For instance, Kevin Carson, looking at his analysis of Tucker's "land monopoly," defines "capitalism" as a system that has "sticky" land ownership. Shawn P. Wilbur on his blog defined "capitalism" as "sticky ownership of land" too.

Richard Williams on his blog explicitly defines "capitalism" as requiring the "sticky" ownership of land:

For capitalism to become consensual, private land ownership would have to be abolished, so that land "ownership" would become contingent on use of the land.

We have shown that the term "free market" can mean the second or third definition, when "capitalism" only means the second definition. Hence, many Austrian market anarchists like to use the less ambiguous term "capitalism" rather than "free market" to describe their thoughts.

Likewise, many "anarcho-capitalists" consider the term "market anarchism" as umbrella term for mutualism and "anarcho-capitalism." The "anarcho-capitalists" therefore dislike the term "market anarchism" and choose to continue using "anarcho-capitalism."

Furthermore, Kevin Carson considers "sticky" (neo-Lockean) land ownership as a form of corporatist privilege (see Carson's comments on Tucker's "land monopoly"). Hence, Carson will probably use the label "vulgar libertarian" to any market anarchist who also support "sticky" ownership of land.

Alex in his past said that he opposes "private property." As predicted, Alex has strawmanned Cork on "private property."

Think about it: those who question "private property" would be free to organize as they see fit if they - accept "private property". This isn't actually a compromise then, it's rather one-sided.

I think Cork use "private property" to mean the "non-aggression principle."

However, I choose to avoid the term "capitalism" too because I dislike to describe things with two or three word labels. I also notice the ambiguity of the terms "private property" and "property rights." Because even neoconservatives use "private property," I consider the term "private property" as a glittering generality.

Unlike Alex, I support "private property" in certain contexts of the term and oppose it on other contexts. Also, I support "corporations" in certain contexts of the term and oppose it in other contexts. Similarly, I support "economic egalitarianism" in the sense of the "equal pay for equal work" doctrine but oppose "economic egalitarianism" in the sense of violent intervention in the marketplace. I do not view words to only have one meaning.

Individualism Anarchism

An Anarchist FAQ seemed to have influenced many prominent "left-libertarians." Roderick T. Long and Charles W. Johnson, for instance, uses the term "individualist anarchism" to refer to only the 19th century anarchist philosophers who advocated economic individualism, and excludes 20th century market anarchists. However, such strange definition of "individualist anarchism" originated from An Anarchist FAQ.

Therefore, for historical consistency, I like to define "anarcho-capitalism" as a branch of "individualist anarchism." An Anarchist FAQ's "anti-capitalist" bias has redefined the term "individualist anarchist" to only refer to those 19th century individualist anarchists.

Lysander Spooner, a 19th century individualist anarchist, supported sticky land ownership and advocated almost the same economic policies as Murray Rothbard. The FAQ, however, did not admit Rothbard as an "individualist anarchist" just because Rothbard use the word "capitalism" in the positive sense.

Ironically, both Tucker and Spooner themselves had never used the term "individualist anarchism" nor "individualist anarchist," not even once. Only later writers coined the term "individualist anarchism" to refer to variety of anarchism that advocates economic individualism.

Spooner, at that time, used "capitalism" in the negative sense because the word meant that way during the 19th century. However, the definition of "capitalism" changed during the 20th century, so individualists anarchists had begun to use "capitalism" in the positive sense starting from the 20th century. The FAQ therefore misinterpreted Rothbard's and Spooner's different usages of "capitalism." The FAQ seems to not actually understand what Spooner and Rothbard meant by "capitalism." The FAQ denied Rothbard and all other 20th century market anarchists as "individualist anarchists" just because those 20th century anarchists use the new definition of "capitalism."

Inconsistency between the Definition of "Capitalism"

Many individuals have a positive view of capitalism, but a negative view of state capitalism. Capitalism and state capitalism are synonyms. A state means a monopoly on the use of force. Statism means the advocacy of a state. Therefore, state capitalism is no more than the advocacy of a state and capitalism. The state may be minimal or may be huge. It is still a state. Therefore, laissez-faire capitalism is a subset of state capitalism. Individuals who are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism are state capitalists.

Some anarcho-capitalists also differentiate capitalism and state capitalism. If anarcho-capitalists do not equate capitalism with state capitalism, then capitalism must be a synonym anarcho-capitalism, since the only other kind of capitalism other than state capitalism is anarcho-capitalism. Then why do they use the redundant adjective 'anarcho' to differentiate the word capitalism? There must be a drive to use 'anarcho.' Therefore, state capitalism must be a synonym for capitalism if the word 'anarcho' is not redundant.

It is also weird that some defend the existence of corporations but oppose corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism means nothing more than capitalism with corporations. Those who defend the existence of corporations, thus, must support corporate capitalism.

---

Contexualism

Many people consider the word "free market capitalism" to be a contradiction. This is because the word "capitalism" for some means an economic system for state exploitation. In that sense, they may be correct if they define them prior to their argument. But a combination of words is not just the worst of both meanings. The term "free market" before "capitalism" is a modifier-adjective. Why do some left-libertarians reject modifier-adjectives?

The modifier-adjective before the word "capitalism" represents a nonlinear transformation, which results in an entirely semantic meaning of the phrase. The phrase should be treated as a different meaning, not just a combination of the words. This is equivalent to the modifier "American" in the word "American liberalism," which is entirely different from liberalism, the European definition. However, in America, the modifier "American" is ommitted, because it is an abbreviation. This is similar to the ommission of "American" in "American football." These two sports are entirely different, yet the same word. Capitalism may be a free market, just like European liberalism. If they reject modifier-adjectives, why don't left-libertarians omit all modifier-adjectives? It is impossible to speak if they omit all, thus it is irrational to omit some modifier-adjectives but not others.

---

Anarcho-freemarketeerism is composed of the parts "anarcho," meaning an- ("not") and "archy" (meaning "authority" or "ruler"). It is known to socialists as both anti-state and ant-capitalism, while to free-market libertarians as anti-state. The other part "freemarketeer," meaning advocacy for free markets. The word is the reversed version of "free market anarchism," which is similar to the structure of "anarcho-capitalism," with the adjective "anarcho." If "anarcho" is the adjective, then it describes an anarchist version of the ideology. If "anarcho" is the ideology, the adjective means a subset of it. However, many words, expecially relating to anarchy, can be reversed without any modification in semantic meaning. A common example is "social anarchism" and "anarcho-socialism." These mean exactly the same version of "libertarian socialism." The word "free" means freedom and the word liberty is a word from the French word "liberté." The word "free" does not exist in France, so the France use the word "Marché libre" (meaning "liberty market") in substitute for "free market." The absance of the word is common in many European languages. 1 Other philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, would argue that humans are always free. This originates from the belief in "free will," which is a mental phenomenon. Free-market libertarians define "liberty" as "free from physical constraints," which would mean non-aggression.2 The word "marketeerism" sounds ungrammatical, but it is logically consistent. The word "marketeer" means someone who supports free markets. The -eer suffix implies someone who engages with the activity. 3 The phrase "free market" is a noun, and the hyphenated version, "free-market" is an adjective. 4 Appending -eer at the end would make it a noun. Is it correct to add an -ism as the suffix of the word? The suffix, -ism usually means a doctrine. In other words ending in -eer, it is sound to add the suffix "-ing," similar to "engineering" and "mountaineering." The word "libertarian" has a definition meaning an adjective, and appending -ism make it a doctrine. But the noun definition would not work. Adding -ism to "freemarketeer" is in the sense of adding -ism in "Rothbardian" + "-ism" = "Rothbardianism". Both of the words "Rothbardian" and "freemarketeer" are describing an attribute of a group of individuals who identify themselves as "Rothbardians" and "freemarketeers." In that sense, "freemarketeerism" has the same sense as "Rothbardianism." This is the same as "heroism," describing all heroes.