I’ve been a recurrent proponent of cooperative anarchism, but there is a line that separates left-anarchism from right-anarchism that I find to be a hindrance. Those on the fiscal left, only take issue with the state on the basis of it being inherently corrupt, while we on the fiscal right, take issue with the state on the basis of it being inherently immoral and there is a disparity in our extrapolations.
One identifies a branch of anarchism as left- or right-wing by its ability to sustain itself without government; once anarchy is achieved, would the collective be without government or replace government? Under anarcho-communism, for example, taxation would be replaced by usufruct and the role of the state to establish eminent domain and control the means of production would be transferred to the commons. Under anarcho-syndicalism, corporations would be replaced with workers. Their willingness to replace the state is based on the “freedom from”, where the libertarian’s would be based on the “freedom to”.
My concern, as is self-evident, is the lack of respect for property rights and the lack of viability when put into practice. Usufructuary acquisition, for instance, is not limited to seizure of private property. Money will not exist under anarcho-communism and fiat currency is likely to be maintained under anarcho-syndicalism, but there will still be a method of redistribution in income will be forcibly distributed, to counteract hierarchy.
---USUFRUCTUARY ESTABLISHMENT---
Anarcho-communists claim to respect personal property, so long as said property is not too great and resources are not finite in the area in question. If it is discovered that an individual owns hundreds of acres of farmland and is unlikely to utilize all of his crops, he will be forced to redistribute them to those who have less crops than he, which seems moral as long as someone who doesn’t take into account the amount of effort that went into producing said crops. However, the recipiency of the goods would be determined by the community, which is to be represented by someone who determines the how much of his accession is redistributed and said person would basically act as a temporary establishment. One of two things are likely to ensue, if this occurs:
a) There will be select group of personnel who are well-versed in mathematics—known under the state as economists—appointed to decide how the crops would be distributed, or
b) the community will rise up against the representative, if they deem him/her a modicum of state power or they will attack the owner of the estate directly.
The latter can act as an alternative to or the result of the former. Regardless, anarchy as statists know it is likely to ensue. I do not wish to live in a society in which anarchy would have to be continuously reestablished.
---THE ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST STOCK MARKET---
Conversely, as previously stated, money would not disappear if anarcho-syndicalism is established and trade unions would replace corporations. This would entail that they own shares in the business based on the amount of work they have done. Anarcho-syndicalism, and anarchist economics in general, are anti-capitalistic, however, the capitalist—that is he, and all, who put capital into establishing the union—would still exist and only be paid if he were to participate in labor to continue to provide services in order for capitalism to counteracted or intercepted. This would, of course entail that the responsibilities of the capitalist to conduct payroll, adjust prices to fit inflation, and calculate interest rates for delayed payment would be a burden upon the workers on top of whatever labor their line of work entails.
Luckily, the collaborative production would not exclude the finance industry being established in place of the capitalist, for the sake of consistency. Banks would be permitted to exist if they are collectively owned and serve their intended purpose of facilitating transmission of funds. Those who have unionized to form the bank would have the option of buying stock in the other unions they assist, receiving requital through banking fees, or receiving requital through more powerful entities in the finance industry.
In order for the furthermost to occur, there would need to be stockbrokerage. Stockbrokers are paid on commission, and therefore cannot be unionized without the commission they earn from the stock they sell being redistributed to other stockbrokers, whether they sold stock or not. This would contradict the syndicalist economic system and annul the practice of paying the would-be capitalist of the existent trade union the same amount as his would-be employees.
The reception of requital through banking fees, on the other hand, is an instance in which the market would replace the state. Under a syndicalist economy, competition amongst unionized banks would jeopardize security as payroll for creditors of a less abounding bank and as a result, many banks would fail unless all bankers work for the same union and the demand for creditors would be resultantly outpaced by the supply.
I refuse to live in a society in which the economic system is so dangerously unstable and the risk of being forced into hand-to-mouth poverty would constantly be imminent.
The alternative to all of this would, of course, be placing the trust of the wealth being distributed correctly upon a populace that collectively champions moral relativism.
---INANIMATE HIERARCHY---
Where left-anarchism fails, right-anarchism misses it's opportunity. The bias toward anarcho-capitalism is explicit, but the ideal system is not without its faults. Return to the gold standard without a central banking system is a recurring preference for right-libertarians. An abolition of borders, however, is also praised. The two cannot coexist.
Yes, the borders remain open for the sole purpose of free trade, but what anarcho-capitalists fail to understand is that if the borders are arbitrary, so is property. Free trade is essentially, one representative paying a toll to enter claimed land, and said toll is paid through the exchanging of goods.
Therefore, the country is the property of the state and once the state is abolished and replaced with an unlimited market, the land is open to be purchased by anyone; could not shares in said land be purchased and assets stored in a centralized bank?
This would only be problematic from a moralistic standpoint in how it would affect immigration. If an immigrant cannot pay the toll to enter into the land or be self-sufficient enough to make use of the shareholders’ facilities, they would be...“evicted”, so to speak. This is the type of economic imperialism that left-anarchists hate.
In short, the only matter upon which anarchists universally agree is hierarchy and the abolition, thereof, but first and foremost, anarchism is a political school of thought and the left and right will always have disparities which are detrimental to mutual existence. It would be best if we ended the state and tread separate paths, and even then would there be conflict on which path would be preferable.
- Josh Bowens
/a.d. mmxvi may xxvii/