Murray Rothbard offers this challenging observation about socialism in his 1964 piece from Continuum, featured on LRC today:
The libertarian needs, perhaps most of all, to be informed by history, and to realize that conservatism was always the polar opposite of classical liberalism. Socialism, in contrast, was not the polar opposite of either, but rather, in my view, a muddled and irrationally contradictory mixture of both liberalism and conservatism. For socialism was essentially a movement to come to terms with the industrial revolution, to try to achieve liberal ends by the use of collectivistic, conservative means. It tried to achieve the ideals of peace, freedom, and a progressing standard of living by using the collectivist, organicist, hierarchical means of conservatism as adapted to industrial society. As a middle-of-the-road doctrine, it is easy for socialism, once it abandoned the liberal ideals of peace and freedom, to shift completely to the conservative pole in the many varying forms of “national socialism.”
{ 19 comments }
Rothbard seems to have equated conservatism to authoritarianism. While some conservatives are indeed authoritarians, I’m not convinced that all conservatives are. I would agree that socialism is not a polar opposite to classical liberalism, but rather, an offshoot of it.
Hi Michael:
I’m wondering if it is possible to entirely generalize a movement down to the last individual who professes to subscribe to it. I suspect all one can do is pull out the consistent aspects of the major leaders of the movement to get the major thrust. For instance, what is libertarianism? To come to a pretty good answer, i’d study the writings of Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, and many of the other leading libertarian scholars associated with the movement and pull out the major consistent arguments. That wouldn’t suit all who consider themselves libertarian, but it goes a long way in that direction, or does it.
It’s not really true that socialism is about using statist means to achieve (classical) liberal goals. After all, not all socialists are state-socialists like communists and social democrats, there are such a thing as anarcho-socialism or left-anarchism who rejects the state
(as well as private property and the “patriarchial” traditional family).
The essence of socialism is instead egalitarianism-the ambition to eliminate all inequalities. That is not all bad. To the extent this means opposing inequalities created by state intervention it is a good thing. But as it also means that one favor the initiation of force (whether through the state or through whatever organizations should be created under anarcho-socialism) to root out natural inequalities. This means both economic egalitarianism through taxation and other forms of invasion of private property as well as quotas, affirmative action etc. to root out statistical inequalities between genders or ethnic groups.
Also we may say that socialism was always the polar opposite of classical liberalism, while conservatism may be regarded as a muddled and irrationally contradictory mixture of both liberalism and socialism. Conservatives try to achieve liberal ends of justice, natural order, and rule of law by the use of collectivistic, compulsory, socialist means.
Valery,
Rothbard was making a historical argument. Going with what Paul Edwards said above, the issue is not whether all socialists believe this or all conservatives believe that. What Rothbard is saying is that in the 19th century, the issue was classical liberalism vs. the old order. The classical liberals at that time were not considered conservatives but as radicals trying to undermine the whole system. Conservatism emerged as a way to resurrect the old order and suppress classical liberalism. Then the socialists came along and confued matters calling for classical liberal ends (the end of government coercion) through conservative (government) means (this time for the people rather than for aristocrats). After this there came more confusion.
The point Rothbard was making is that generally speaking in the 19th century and before, the was harmony of means and ends with both (old order) conservatism and classical liberalism. They were polar opposites in both. Whereas socialism came along basically calling for liberal ends through conservative means. Later, the terms and the history get confused beyond recognition.
Socialism is a Rule by Soviets plus Electification of the Whole Country.
[If you wonder who came up with that inanity, it was Lenin].
Seriously, socialism is an attempt to abolish the biological roots of social behaviors with cultural “re-education”. A belief in possiblity of culturally-induced eusociality in humans. Needless to say, biology turned out to be stronger.
In other words, socialism is a revolt against the human nature.
Electrification (sorry for the typo
But Stefan, I’m interested in hearing how to implement anarcho-socialism, with its rejection of the state AND private property without revealing a rather massive inner contradiction. It’s the ultimate contradiction unless i’m missing something (entirely possible).
And while socialism is wound up in egalitarianism, the socialist is not advocating equality in poverty, but rather equality in affluence and happiness, freedom from oppression, and many of the ends that libertarians seek. Then they turn around and advocate the use of the coercive state to implement it, as you allude to. A very nasty means to what might be argued an ok end.
Paul, first of all, as you may have noticed I am not a anarcho-socialist myself so I am not going to try to defend the viability of their schemes as I do not believe in it. But presumably I think they want some sort of “private” security agency to prevent people from engaging in “exploation” (i.e. capitalist dealings).
Regarding what the socialists desire you are probably right that most socialists want a high standard of living. But that is a secondary consideration and by no means a necessary one. It is perfectly compatible with socialism to desire a low standard of living. Moreover of course, in practice socialism will by necessity lead to poverty regardless of the wishes of the socialists.
The essence of socialism is again egalitarianism-the desire of everyone to have (roughly at least) equal outcome. And since this due to the natural differences among humans in abilities and ambitions is a unnatural end-it will by necessity require the use of coersive measures to achieve.
“The libertarian [anyone] needs, perhaps most of all, to be informed by history…” (Rothbard)
History:
“What remains to be done, then, for wise men, is clearly this: to attempt to penetrate the future by investigating the past and the present, to ascertain whether there be not elements of calculation capable of fixing with tolerable certainty the precise point in the sidereal heavens of human destiny toward which our whole system is confessedly verging with accelerated velocity.”
“What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual, -a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basis principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all.” (Stephen Pearl Andrews, The Science of Society, True Constitution of Government, A Lecture, NEW YORK, January 1851)
“Socialism, in contrast, was not the polar opposite of either, but rather, in my view, a muddled and irrationally contradictory mixture of both liberalism and conservatism. For socialism was essentially a movement to come to terms with the industrial revolution, to try to achieve liberal ends by the use of collectivistic, conservative means.” (Rothbard)
“Again, Socialism assumes every shade and variety of opinion respecting the modes of realizing its own aspirations, and, indeed, upon every other point, except one, which when investigated, will be found to be the paramount rights of the Individual over social institutions, and the consequent demand that all existing social institutions shall be so modified that the Individual shall be in no manner subjected to them.” (SPA 1851)
It sounds to me like Murray Rothbard may have missed some history. I don’t think he would simply ignore it. Then again how often am I right?
Hi Stefan:
I did indeed notice.
Perhaps i am making a mountain out of a mole-hill, and being a pain in the butt to boot, but i have written this all up now, so i’ll post it.
My (small) point was that you used anarcho-socialism as an example of a form of socialism that does not advocate the state, and my argument is that it actually must advocate the state or else it can not be an example of a form of socialism. I say this because to enforce its socialism with private enforcement, and not a state, would require recognizing some form of property and contract. But this socialism does not allow property and contract (if I understood you correctly). And besides, we all know what we get with no state, combined with recognition of property and contract.
To make a long story short, pointing to a self-contradictory anarcho-socialism does not show that socialism doesn’t ask for a state. If you say, fine Paul it does require a state, but they claim it doesn’t and that is the point; I would respond that their lies and deceptions wouldn’t make it a truly distinct brand of socialism; it is just more of the same confusion with one more layer of misrepresentation added on top. Or else I will define one more form of socialism right here and now: marsio-socialism: socialism on Mars (no space suits needed).
In respect to standard of living being secondary to its egalitarian goals, this might be the crux of your point. As true as it is that there are some self-proclaimed libertarians who believe in conscription, there will be socialists who don’t care if the masses live in poverty. But you will not hear of a successful socialist movement that admits its egalitarian goals will result in abject poverty for the masses, or that it does not matter if it does. And when we speak of socialism, as we speak of libertarianism, I think we speak of what most people in, and the major proponents of the movement perceive or publish the ends to be. In the case of socialism it is prosperity and liberty for all, exploitation of no one, to be provided by your friendly all knowing all powerful totalitarian state.
Paul Edwards
I think that anarchosocialists are honest in not wanting a state (unless you call self-deception dishonest). If you want to imagine an anarchosocialist society, start with an anarchocapitalist one. Then have all judges stop upholding property rights, and instead call defence of property by means of physical violence an act of aggression.
So if I am breaking down your door and you threaten me with a gun to make me stop, in anarchcapitalism I am attacking you, but in anarchosocialism you are attacking me. And they claim that this is the natural order, so if we remove all coersion this is what we will end up with.
OK, Paul, I think I see what you mean. You argue that even if anarcho-socialists believe that they don’t want a state, their rejection of property rights means they’ll have to do it.
But I don’t see how that is necessarily true. You write “we all know what we get with no state, combined with recognition of property and contract.”. Yes, that’s anarcho-capitalism. But what if there is no recognition of private property and contract? What if the private courts simply decides to regards it illegitimate for anyone to claim ownership over the means of production even if they created these means of production and had reached a agreement to allow someone else to work with it? Well, then you’ll have anarcho-socialism. Just because a court or private security agency don’t act according to libertarian theory doesn’t mean its a state.
A good guide to anarchism, including both the anarcho-socialist and the anarcho-capitalist variety is found in Bryan Caplan’s Anarchist Theory FAQ For a description of how anarcho-socialism or left-anarchy would work see Part 9.
It is interesting BTW to see that you challenge the right of anarcho-socialists to consider themselves anarchists as it is usually the anarcho-socialists who argue that anarcho-capitalists cannot be considered real anarchists since they approve of private property, which anarcho-socialists regard as a form of private oppresssion. Here is just one example of anarcho-socialist web pages attacking anarcho-capitalism and rejecting the right of anarcho-capitalists to consider themselves anarchists.
Regarding the issue of socialism and poverty, I think there is a difference between a libertarian who believes in conscription and a socialist who wants poverty. A libertarian (Even a great one like Ludwig von Mises) favoring conscription is clearly violating the libertarian principle of non-initiation of force. By contrast a socialist who wish to revert to the pre-industrial age may disagree with the majority of socialists, but he isn’t violating any socialist principle. I would rather liken him to a libertarian who wish to see widespread poverty. A libertarian in favor of poverty is not violating any libertarian principles as long as he don’t initiate force to compel people to be poor and only tries to persuade people to voluntarily revert to the pre-industrial way of life.
One example of a prominent socialist who didn’t even pretend to be in favor of a higher standard of living was Pol Pot in Cambodia, who advocated a return to simple life and forced everyone to evacuate the cities and live in collective farming communities on the counrty side. That of course lead to increadible poverty and widespread starvation.
“This definition of Socialism may surprise some into the discovery of the fact that they have been Socialists all along, unawares. Some, on the other hand, who have called themselves Socialists may not at once be inclined to accept the definition. They may not perceive clearly that it is the emancipation of the Individual for which they are labouring, and affirm that it is, on the other hand, the freedom and happiness of the race. They will not, however, deny that it is both; and a very little reflection will show that the freedom and happiness of each individual will be the freedom and happiness of the race, and that the freedom and happiness of the race cannot exist so long as there is any individual of the race who is not happy and free.” (SPA, 1851)
“Finally, this indestructible and all-pervading Individuality furnishes, itself, the law, and the only true law, of order and harmony. Governments have hitherto been established, and have apologized for the unseemly fact of their existence, from the necessity of establishing and maintaining order; but order has never yet been maintained, revolutions and violent outbreaks have never yet been ended, public peace and harmony have never yet been secured, for the precise reason that the organic, essential, and indestructible natures of the objects which it was attempted to reduce to order have always been constricted and infringed by every such attempt. Just in proportion as the effort is less and less made to reduce men to order, just in that proportion they become more orderly, as witness the difference in the state of society in Austria and the United States. Plant an army of one hundred thousand soldiers in New York, as at Paris, to preserve the peace, and we should have a bloody revolution in a week; and be assured that the only remedy for what little of turbulence remains among us, as compared with European societies, will be found to be more liberty. When there remain positively no external restrictions, there will be positively no disturbance, provided always certain regulating principles of justice, to which I shall advert presently, are accepted and enter into the public mind, serving as substitutes for every species of repressive laws. (SPA, 1851)
“If, now, Individuality is a universal law which must be obeyed if we would have order and harmony in any sphere, and, consequently, if we would have a true constitution of human government, then the absolute Sovereignty of the Individual necessarily results.” (SPA, 1851)
Ignoring facts do not make facts go away. Claiming to know the definition you posses is one thing. Claiming to know the definition of socialism for others is something else entirely.
Motives and actions define people; the labels either communicate accurately or they communicate falsely.
“be informed by history”
Pol Pot was a mad man. The classical economic theories were formulated whan half the working class lived in poverty and spent half of their life’s energy to obtain enough calories to stay alive. It is a different world when less than 5% of our energy is spent acumulating food. Most of the stuff sold in the malls is unnecessary to sustain life. In this economy, “nothing happens until someone sells something.”
Not bad responses, Stefan. I’ll take a look at that site you reference. But before i do, let me take a stab at an assumption i tentatively question that is behind this:
“What if the private courts simply decides to regards it illegitimate for anyone to claim ownership over the means of production even if they created these means of production and had reached a agreement to allow someone else to work with it?”
Here’s my question: what private courts? On what basis can we have private courts that don’t recognize property rights? What meaning does the word “private” have if even these private courts don’t recognize property? On the surface, to me it seems to be another contradiction. It seems more like this form of “private” courts are in fact state courts. But i’m open to stand corrected. And i admit i should definitely look at these anarcho-socialist sites, which i’ll do soon. Thanks!
Interesting to walk through the looking glass, and left-anarchism is certainly a bizarre, mirror image of both modern liberalism and anarcho-capitalism.
One point that may be relevant here is that “property” is related to the Marxian “means of production”, as in the property necessary to make a living. Personal possessions are typically not considered “property” in a formal sense by left-anarchists. Thus, having your own toothbrush or even a car is not necessarily an offense to them, but private ownership of factories and farmland is offensive (“property is theft”).
This distinction between the personal/social and the economic has long puzzled me. If recognition of private property is a good way of handling personal possessions, then why isn’t it a good way of handling the resources and tools necessary to make a living? Even in mainstream society, economic stuff is handled differently, with less reverence, than personal/social stuff. A business owner’s rights are considered much more “malleable” than a homeowner’s rights.
One additional upshot of these variations is the old French slogan of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and which manifests itself strongly in communitarian thinking, as well as in left-anarchism: the desire to encourage or even force people into social contact and social relationships. “Face time” with other people is valued not as merely a means to other ends, but as an end in itself that is worth pursuing. Thus, the anonymity that capitalism allows is not, to them, a good thing. Conflict-resolution calls for discussion, negotiation, and compromise. Political decision making, even for anarcho-socialists, seems very focused on consensus.
All of which is not to say that I truly understand or agree with the position, but as I said initially, very interesting…
Stefan,
I think the problem’s a definitional one. I’m thinking of socialism (probably Paul Edwards does as well) as some sort of government control over property or at least “the means of production”. Most advocates of this have claimed material abundance and “liberty” as the goals of their programs. However, you’re certainly right (thanks for the links) that the picture is complicated by the egalitarian trend that seems to run through the movement.
I still think Rothbard has a point in his historical outline. Although I would now add that the egalitarian trend then came up and is now arguably the really dominant characteristic of socialism. Hardly anyone now spends as much time as in the past explaining just how socialism leads to material abundance.
In any case, your links finally clarified for me what I’d found problematic about the left anarchists. I’d originally come across anarchist theory from the left – Mikhail Bakunin and later Chomsky. What they said all seemed reasonable to me. Only there was something seemingly contradictory about claiming both anarchism and “syndicalism” (or some sort of collectivist type decision making) as foundational. It seemed clear to me the latter must necessarily end up in socialism – i.e. government control. I agree with Paul on that. Although I would accept that the left anarchists are anarchists if they accept the absence of the state. They simply fail to understand the economics/theory of collectivism.
The following excerpt, from the Part 9 link Stefan provided strikes me as my impression as well:
“Many would observe that there is nothing anarchistic about this proposal; indeed, names aside, it fits easily into the orthodox state-socialist tradition. Bakunin would have probably ridiculed such ideas as authoritarian Marxist socialism in disguise, and predicted that the leading anarchist revolutionaries would swiftly become the new despots.”
but on the other hand, on further reflection, i don’t know if i have convinced myself that anarcho-socialism is any more dishonest, twisted or foolish than straight-up socialism is. What is one more inconsistency in a theory completely void of any concern for or understanding of economics or human action whatsoever?
This was a fun topic though.
Comments on this entry are closed.