Теория анархизма: часто задаваемые вопросы или что-то вместо этого, написанное человеком, слишком занятым, чтобы написать ответы на эти вопросы. Версия 5.2

Я всецело согласен с утверждением: "Лучшее правительство то, которое правит как можно меньше," - и хотел бы, чтобы оно осуществлялось быстрее и более систематически. Осуществленное, оно сводится в конце концов - и за это я тоже стою - к девизу: "Лучшее правительство то, которое не правит вовсе", а когда люди будут к этому готовы, то именно такие правительства у них и будут. 

-- Генри Дэвид Торо, "О гражданском неповиновении"

Некоторые авторы настолько смешали понятия «общество» и «правительство», что между ними не осталось никакого или почти никакого различия; между тем это вещи не только разные, но и разного происхождения... Общество в любом своем состоянии есть благо, правительство же и самое лучшее есть лишь необходимое зло, а в худшем случае – зло нестерпимое.

-- Томас Пейн, "Здравый смысл"

Они [марксисты] утверждают, что только диктатура, конечно, их, может создать народную волю, мы отвечаем, что никакая диктатура не может иметь другой цели, кроме увековечения себя, и что она способна породить и воспитать в народе, сносящем ее, только рабство; свобода может быть создана только свободою, т. е. всенародным бунтом и вольною организациею рабочих масс снизу вверх.

 -- Михаил Бакунин, Государственность и Анархия

В современных государствах выпустить новый закон считается лекарством от всех зол. Вместо того, чтобы самим изменять то, что плохо, люди всё время просят нового закона. Если дорога между двумя деревнями станет непроходимой, западно-европейские крестьяне, вместо того, чтобы исправить её, болтают промеж себя, что надо бы издать новый закон насчёт просёлочных дорог. – Деревенский урядник, пользуясь всеобщим холопством, оскорбит кого-нибудь, – «Надо бы закон такой, чтоб велел урядникам быть повежлевей!» – говорит оскорблённый. – Земледелие и торговля приходят-ли в упадок? – «Необходимы охранительные пошлины» – говорят в один голос и крестьяне, и помещики, и <прасолы>. И наконец, если фабрикант уменьшает зарплату рабочим, или удлиняет их рабочий день, – «Нужно законом их обуздать!» – восклицают  ораторы, метящие в депутаты<, – вместо того, чтобы сказать рабочим, что против хозяйской жадности есть другое средство: отобрать у них то, что они нажили, грабя поколения рабочих>. Словом, на всё нужен закон. Закон о просёлочных дорогах, закон для мод, закон против бешеных собак, закон о добродетелях,закон для обуздания пороков, – законы против всех зол, происходящих от беспечности и трусости людской!

-- Пётр Кропоткин, "Закон и власть"

[W]hoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called) puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so?... 4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support. 

 -- Lysander Spooner, No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority

Если взглянуть на скорбный перечень массовых убийств, эксплуатации и тирании, которым подвергалось общество со стороны правительств, следует без колебаний отвернуться от государства-левиафана и попытаться жить свободно.

-- Мюррей Ротбард, К новой свободе

1. Что такое анархизм? Какие взгляды разделяют анархисты?

Словарь "Американ Херитаж Колледж Дикшинари" дает следующее определение анархизма: "это теория или доктрина, согласно которой все формы государства не нужны, построены на угнетении, неудобны и поэтому должны быть отменены". Анархизм - это отрицание; он придерживается той идеи, что одна вещь, а именно "государство", плоха и должна быть отменена. Помимо этого определяющего принципа трудно указать какие-либо взгляды, которых придерживаются все анархисты. Как атеисты могут поддерживать или не соглашаться с какой-либо идеей о несуществовании Бога, также и анархисты не только могут, но и, в действительности, придерживаются всего спектра взглядов по поводу несуществования государства.

Как и следовало ожидать, разные группы анархистов постоянно пытаются искоренить анархистов с другими взглядами, также, как многие христиане говорят, что именно их направление - единственное "истинное" христианство, и как многие социалисты говорят, что их социализм - единственный "настоящий" социализм. В этом тексте, как мне кажется, принята беспристрастная точка зрения, что такая тактика бесмысленна, и просто предотвращает обсуждение важных проблем. (NB: Предыдущее определение подвергалось критике множество раз. Для просмотра моего приложения "Определение анархизма", нажмите здесь.)

2. Зачем же вообще обсуждать анархизм?

В отличие от исследователей истории, анархисты видят общую причину многих проблем человечества - государство. Только в XX веке различные государства убили гораздо больше 100 млн. людей - на войне, в концентрационных лагерях или искуственно вызванным голодом. И это просто продолжение как-будто бесконечной исторической модели: едва ли не с начала писанной истории существовало правительство. Как только оно возникло, правящий класс стал жить за счет труда обычных людей, и этот правящий класс обычно использовал полученные нечестным путем средства для создания армий, ведения войны и расширения сферы своего влияния. В то же время государство всегда подавляло непопулярные меньшинства, оппозицию, попытки гениев и новаторов поднять человечество на новые интеллектуальные, моральные, культурные и экономические высоты. Передавая излишки благ от производителей правящей элите, государство часто подавляло любое побуждение к долговременному экономическому росту и таким образом препятствовала подъему человечества из бедности; и в то же самое время государство всегда использовало эти излишки благ для укрепления своей власти.

Если государство - это явная причина такого большого количества страданий и жестокости, не желательнее ли было бы исследовать альтернативы ему? Возможно, государство - необходимое зло, которое мы не можем устранить. Но, возможно, оно довольно не нужное зло, которое мы принимаем по инерции, тогда как совершенно другое общество было бы намного лучше.

3. Разве анархисты не одобряют хаос?

По определению, анархисты против только государства, а не порядка или общества. "Свобода - Мать, а не Дочь Порядка", -- писал Прудон, и большинство анархистов склонны согласиться с этим. Обычно анархисты требуют отмену государства не из-за желания бунтовать как такового, а потому, что думают, что могут предложить кое-что получше. Или, как выразился Кропоткин: "Разрушение существующего порядка невозможно, если во время свержения или ведущей к этому борьбы, в умах отсутствует идея того, что должно заменить разрушенное. Невозможна даже теоретическая критика существующих условий, если у критика нет более или менее отчетливой картины того, что он хотел бы видеть на месте существующего государства. Сознательно или несознательно, идеал, концепция чего-то лучшего рождается в мыслях каждого, кто критикует социальные интституты".

В анархизме есть антиинтеллектуальное течение, одобряющее хаос и разрушение как конечную цель саму по себе. В то время как, возможно, это течение охватывает большинство людей, которые называют себя анархистами, оно не является выдающимся течением мысли для тех, кто всерьез думал и писал о теории анархизма.

4. Разве кроме идеи отмены государства анархисты не одобряют также отмену семьи, собственности, религии и других социальных институтов?

Некоторые анархисты одобряли отмену одной или нескольких вышеперечисленных вещей, а другие - нет. Для одних это всего лишь иные формы притеснения и господства. Для других это жизненно необходимые промежуточные институты, защищающие нас от государства. Для третьих часть вышеупомянутого - это хорошо, а остальное - плохо, или, может быть, эти вещи плохи в настоящем состоянии, но заслуживают улучшения.

5. Какие большие подразделения можно выделить среди анархистов?

Как должно быть ясным читателю групп новостей alt.society.anarchy или alt.anarchism, есть две довольно расходящихся между собой линии анархистской мысли. Первая широко известна как "левый анархизм"; она включает в себя анархо-социалистов, анархо-синдикалистов и анархо-коммунистов. Эти анархисты считают, что в анархическом обществе люди или хотели бы или должны отказаться или сильно уменьшить роль права частной собственности. Экономическая система должна быть организована на основе кооперативов, фирм, находящихся в собственности работников, и/или коммун. Ключевая ценность этой линии анархистской мысли - эгалитаризм - взгляд на неравенства, особенно в богатстве и власти, как на нечто нежелательное, аморальное и порождаемое обществом.

Вторая линия широко известна как "анархо-капитализм". Эти анархисты полагают, что в анархическом обществе люди хотели бы или должны не только сохранить частную собственность, но и расширить ее границы, чтобы охватить все сферы общества. Ни один анархо-капиталист никогда не отрицал право людей добровольно объединять частную собственность и организовывать кооперативы, фирмы, находящиеся в собственности работников, или коммуны; но они также считают, что некоторые виды собственности, включая такие организации как корпорации, не только совершенно законны, но, вероятно, будут преобладающей формой экономической организации при анархии. В отличие от левых анархистов, анархо-капиталисты вообще придают мало или никакого значения равенству, полагая, что неравенство по всем параметрам, включая доход и богатство, не только совершенно законно, пока оно "осуществляется правильным путем", но является естественным следствием человеческой свободы.

Большая доля левых анархистов крайне скептически высказываются по поводу причастности к анархизму анархо-капиталистов, доказывая, что анархистское движение исторически было чисто левым. По моему мнению, для того, чтобы доказать это заявление, нужно переписать не одну страницу истории. Карл Ландауер, великий социалистический историк, в книге "Европейский социализм: история идей и движений" (издана в 1959 г. ранее каких-либо важных, современных работ анархо-капиталистов) пишет, что:

"Безусловно, есть различие между индивидуалистическим и коллективистским, или коммунистическим, анархизмом. Бакунин называл себя коммунистическим анархистом. Но коммунистические анархисты тоже не признают за обществом право принуждать индивидуума. Они отличаются от анархо-индивидуалистов убеждением, что люди, если их не принуждать, буд ут вступать в добровольные ассоциации коммунистического типа, тогда как другое крыло полагает, что свободный человек предпочтет высокую степень изолированности. Коммунистические анархисты отвергают право частной собственности, которое поддерживается властью государства. Индивидуалистические анархисты склонны к тому, чтобы сохранить частную собственность как необходимое условие индивидуальной независимости, полностью не отвечая на вопрос как собственность может быть сохранена без судов и полиции."

Следует заметить, что как Такер, так и Спунер писали о способности свободного рынка обеспечить услуги по соблюдению законности и предоставлению защиты, поэтому замечание Ландауера не было точно даже в 1959 г. Но вот интересный момент: до появления современного анархо-капитализма Ландауер считал необходимым различать два течения анархизма, только одно из которых существует, как он считал, в пределах широкой социалистической традиции.

6. Анархизм - то же самое, что и либертарианство?

Это действительно сложный вопрос, потому что термин "либертарианство" сам имеет два очень различных значения. Либертарианство было популярным эвфемизмом для левого анархизма в Европе в XIX в. Однако, термин не завоевал популярность в Соединенных Штатах.

После II Мировой Войны многие американские интеллектуалы, стоявшие за свободный рынок, -- противники традиционного консерватизма, -- искали слово для определения своей позиции, и в конечном счете выбрали "либертарианство". ("Классический либерализм" и "рыночный либерализм" являются альтернативными терминами для обозначения той же точки зрения.) Результатом стало то, что в двух разных, редко сообщающихся между собой, политических культурах термин "либертарианец" использовался в двух очень различных значениях. В настоящее время, американский вариант в основном используется в академической политической теории (вероятно, вследствие влияния Нозика), но европейский вариант все еще популярен среди многих лево-анархистских активистов как в Европе, так и в США.

Семантический беспорядок был усложнен позже, когда некоторые из ранних послевоенных американских либертарианцев определили, что логическим выводом из их взглядов был, в действительности, некий вариант анархизма. Они приняли термин "анархо-капитализм" для того, чтобы отличить себя от более умеренного либертарианства, но вообще были согласны отождествлять себя с более широким свободно-рыночным либертарианским движением.

7. Анархизм - то же самое, что и социализм?

Если мы принимаем одно традиционное определение социализма -- "оправдание государственной собственности на средства производства", -- то видно, что анархисты не являются социалистами по определению. Но если под социализмом мы подразумеваем что-то более широкое, такое, как "оправдание сильного ограничения или отмены частной собственности", тогда вопрос становится более сложным.

Согласно второму предложенному определению, некоторые анархисты являются социалистами, но другие -- нет. Вне англо-американской политической культуры были длительные и тесные исторические отношения между более ортодоксальными социалистами, которые защищают социалистическое правительство, и анархистскими социалистами, которые желают некоего децентрализованного, добровольного социализма. Обе эти группы хотят резко ограничить или отменить частную собственность, и, таким образом, обе группы подходят под второе определение социализма. Однако, анархисты определенно не хотят, чтобы государство владело средствами производства, поскольку они не хотят, чтобы государство вообще существовало.

Спор анархистов с традиционными социалистами -- это спор, лучше всего проиллюстрированный ожесточенной борьбой между Карлом Марксом и Михаилом Бакунином за господство в движении европейских рабочих в XIX в. -- часто описывается как разногласие по вопросу о "средствах". По этому объяснению социалистические анархисты и государственные социалисты соглашаются, что коммунальное и эгалитарное общество желательно, но обвиняют друг друга в предложении неэффективных средств достижения этого. Однако, это, возможно, преуменьшает значение конфликта, который также касается более фундаментальных ценностей: социалистические анархисты подчеркивают необходимость автономии и вред авторитаризма, в то время как традиционные социалисты часто принижали эти вопросы как "буржуазные".

Когда мы обращаемся к англо-американской политической культуре, история здесь совсем другая. Опасный антисоциалистический анархизм там более обычен, и был таким с начала XIX века. Великобритания была домом для многих сильно антисоциалистических квазианархических мыслителей XIX века, таких как Оберон Герберт и ранний Герберт Спенсер. Соединенные Штаты были даже более плодородной почвой для индивидуалистического анархизма: в течение XIX века такие фигуры, как Джосия Уоррен, Лисандр Спунер и Бенджамин Такер стали знамениты своим видением анархизма, основанного на свободном договоре и частной собственности. И в XX веке, мыслители, проживающие в пределах Соединенных Штатов были главными разработчиками и экспортерами анархо-капиталистической теории.

Все же не нужно преувеличивать это географическое разделение. Анархисты француз Прудон и немец Макс Штернер оба принимали измененные формы индивидуализма; множество лево-анархистов (часто европейские иммигранты) добились уважения в Соединенных Штатах; и Ноам Чомски и Мюррей Букчин -- двое из самых влиятельных теоретиков современного лево-анархизма -- оба проживают в пределах Соединенных Штатов.

8. Кто является главным анархистским мыслителем?

Самыми известными лево-анархистами были, вероятно, Михаил Бакунин и Петр Кропоткин. Также Пьер Прудон часто включается в этот список, хотя его идеи о желательности измененной формы частной собственности склонили бы некоторых исключить его из левого лагеря полностью. (Другие принципы, взятые Прудоном не из социалистического учения, включают в себя защиту права наследования и акцент на подлинное противоречие между государственной властью и правом на собственность.) Более поздние лево-анархисты включают в себя Эмму Голдман, Мюррея Букчин и Ноама Чомски.

Анархо-капитализм имеет более недавнее происхождение (вторая половина XX века). Возможно, два самых известных защитника анархо-капитализма это Мюррей Ротбард и Дэвид Фридман. Но было несколько интересных ранних предшественников, среди которых выделяется бельгийский экономист Гюстав де Молинари. Двое других анархистов XIX века, которые были приняты современными анархо-капиталистами с некоторыми оговорками, – это Бенджамин Такер и Лисандр Спунер. (Некоторые лево-анархисты оспаривают это, но Такер и Спунер, возможно, имеют больше общего с анархо-капиталистами, чем с лево-анархистами.)

Более исчерпывающие списки анархистских фигур можно найти в нескольких обширных исторических трудах, перечисленных далее в тексте.

9. Как работала бы левая анархия?

Существуют разные мнения по этому вопросу. Среди лево-анархистов существуют те, кто представляют себе возвращение к более простому, размеренному состоянию доиндустриальной социальной организации. Другие планируют сохранить современные технологии и цивилизацию (может быть, сделав их более экологичными), но положить конец частной собственности на средства производства.

Чем же она будет заменена? На этот счёт существовали различные указания. Существующие предприятия могут просто перейти в собственность рабочих, и далее находиться под демократическим контролем рабочих. Это картина анархо-синдикалистов: сохранить экономику, основанную на большом количестве предприятий, но предприятий находящихся в собственности и под контролем самих рабочих каждого предприятия. Предположительно предприятия могут заключать сделки с другими для получения необходимых материалов; или, возможно, они продолжат платить зарплаты деньгами и продавать продукцию потребителям. Не очень ясно как синдикалисты намереваются принимать меры для равной заботы о нуждающихся или обеспечение необходимой, но неприбыльной продукцией. Может быть, допускается, что синдикаты будут  участвовать в выполнении социальных обязанностей; другие предлагали предприятиям выбирать представителей для организаций, объединяющих многие предприятия, которые будут выполнять необходимые задачи.

It should be noted that Tom Wetzel disputes my characterization of anarcho-syndicalism; he argues that very few anarcho-syndicalists ever imagined that workers would simply take over their firms, while maintaining the basic features of the market economy. Rather, the goal has usually been the establishment of an overarching democratic structure, rather than a multitude of uncoordinated firm-centered democracies. Or at Wetzel states, "Anarcho-syndicalism advocates the development of a mass workers' movement based on direct democracy as the vehicle for reorganization of the society on the basis of direct workers' collective power over social production, thus eliminating the domination and exploitation of the producing class by an exploiting class. Workers cannot have collective power over the system of social production as isolated groups competing in a market economy; rather, workers self- management requires structures of democratic control over social production and public affairs generally. Workers' self- management thus refers, not just to self-management of the individual workplace, but of the whole system of social production. This requires grassroots bodies, such as workers' congresses or conventions, through which coordinated policies for the society can be developed in a democratic manner. This is proposed as a substitute or replacement for the historical nation-state." On this interpretation of anarcho-syndicalism, the revolutionary trade unions are a means for achieving an anarchist society, rather than a proposed basis for social organization under anarchy. 

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 Wetzel is perhaps right that many or even most historical anarcho-syndicalists were championing the system outlined in his preceding quotation. He goes on to add that "[I]f you look at the concept of 'state' in the very abstract way it often is in the social sciences, as in Weber's definition, then what the anarcho-syndicalists were proposing is not elimination of the state or government, but its radical democratization. That was not how anarchists themselves spoke about it, but it can be plausibly argued that this is a logical consequence of a certain major stream of left-anarchist thought." 

Ronald Fraser's discussion of the ideology of the Spanish Anarchists (historically the largest European anarchist movement) strongly undermines Wetzel's claim, however. There were two well-developed lines of thought, both of which favored the abolition of the State in the broad Weberian sense of the word, and which did indeed believe that the workers should literally have control over their workplaces. After distinguishing the rural and the urban tendencies among the Spanish ideologists, Fraser explains: 

Common to both tendencies was the idea that the working class 'simply' took over factories and workplaces and ran them collectively but otherwise as before... Underlying this vision of simple continuity was the anarcho-syndicalist concept of the revolution not as a rupture with, the destruction and replacement of, the bourgeois order but as the latter's displacement. The taking over of factories and workplaces, however violently carried out, was not the beginning of the revolution to create a new order but its final goal. This view, in turn was conditioned by a particular view of the state. Any state (bourgeois or working class) was considered an oppressive power tout court - not as the organization of a particular class's coercive power. The 'state' in consequence, rather than the existence of the capitalist mode of production which gave rise to its particular form, often appeared as the major enemy. The state did not have to be taken, crushed, and a new - revolutionary - power established. No. If it could be swept away, abolished, everything else, including oppression, disappeared. The capitalist order was simply displaced by the new-won workers' freedom to administer the workplaces they had taken over. Self-organized in autonomous communes or in all-powerful syndicates, the workers, as the primary factor in production, dispensed with the bourgeoisie. The consequences of this were seen in the 1936 Barcelona revolution; capitalist production and market relations continued to exist within collectivized industry.

Overall, the syndicalist is probably the best elaborated of the left-anarchist systems. But others in the broader tradition imagine individuals forming communes and cooperatives which would be less specialized and more self- sufficient than the typical one-product-line anarcho- syndicalist firm. These notions are often closely linked to the idea of creating a more environmentally sound society, in which small and decentralized collectives redirect their energies towards a Greener way of life. 

Many left-anarchists and anarchist sympathizers have also been attracted to Guild Socialism in one form or another. Economist Roger A. McCain thoughtfully explores Guild Socialism as an alternative to both capitalism and the state in "Guild Socialism Reconsidered," one of his working papers. To view it, click here. 

Kropotkin's lucid essay "Law and Authority" gives a thoughtful presentation of the left-anarchist's view of law. Primitive human societies, explains Kropotkin, live by what legal thinkers call "customary law": an unwritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up primarily by social pressure. Kropotkin considers this sort of behavioral regulation to be unobjectionable, and probably consistent with his envisaged anarchist society. But when centralized governments codified customary law, they mingled the sensible dictates of tribal conscience with governmental sanctions for exploitation and injustice. As Kropotkin writes, "[L]egislators confounded in one code the two currents of custom ... the maxims which represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure external existence to inequality. Customs, absolutely essential to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect from the crowd. 'Do not kill,' says the code, and hastens to add, 'And pay tithes to the priest.' 'Do not steal,' says the code, and immediately after, 'He who refuses to pay taxes, shall have his hand struck off.'" 

So perhaps Kropotkin's ideal society would live under the guidance of a reformed customary law stripped of the class legislation with which it is now so closely associated. But Kropotkin continues to give what appear to be arguments against even customary law prohibiting e.g. murder. Almost all violent crime is actually caused by poverty and inequality created by existing law. A small residual of violent crime might persist, but efforts to handle it by legal channels are futile. Why? Because punishment has no effect on crime, especially such crimes of passion as would survive the abolition of private property. Moreover, criminals should not be judged wicked, but rather treated as we now treat the sick and disadvantaged. 

Most left-anarchists probably hold to a mix of Kropotkin's fairly distinct positions on law and crime. Existing law should be replaced by sensible and communitarian customs; and the critic of anarchism underestimates the extent to which existing crime is in fact a product of the legal system's perpetuation of inequality and poverty. And since punishment is not an effective deterrent, and criminals are not ultimately responsible for their misdeeds, a strictly enforced legal code may be undesirable anyway. 

Some other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are quite unclear. Whether dissidents who despised all forms of communal living would be permitted to set up their own inegalitarian separatist societies is rarely touched upon. Occasionally left-anarchists have insisted that small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivized, but the limits of the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian way of life are rarely specified. 

Как работал бы анархо-капитализм?

Most of the prominent anarcho-capitalist writers have been academic economists, and as such have felt it necessary to spell out the workings of their preferred society in rather greater detail than the left-anarchists have. In order to best grasp the anarcho-capitalist position, it is helpful to realize that anarcho-capitalists have emerged almost entirely out of the modern American libertarian movement, and believe that their view is simply a slightly more extreme version of the libertarianism propounded by e.g. Robert Nozick. 

FAQs on the broader libertarian movement are widely available on the Net, so we will only give the necessary background here. So-called "minarchist" libertarians such as Nozick have argued that the largest justified government was one which was limited to the protection of individuals and their private property against physical invasion; accordingly, they favor a government limited to supplying police, courts, a legal code, and national defense. This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic theory, according to which private property and unregulated competition generally lead to both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly) a high rate of economic progress. While left-anarchists are often hostile to "bourgeois economics," anarcho-capitalists hold classical economists such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Jean-Baptiste Say in high regard, as well as more modern economists such as Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and James Buchanan. The problem with free-market economists, say the anarcho-capitalists, is not that they defend the free market, but merely that their defense is too moderate and compromising. 

(Note however that the left-anarchists' low opinion of the famous "free-market economists" is not monolithic: Noam Chomsky in particular has repeatedly praised some of the political insights of Adam Smith. And Peter Kropotkin also had good things to say about Smith as both social scientist and moralist; Conal Smith explains that "In particular he approved of Smith's attempt to apply the scientific method to the study of morals and society, his critique of the state in The Wealth of Nations, and his theory of human sociability in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.") 

Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own logic against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state could not be turned over to the free market. And so, the anarcho-capitalist imagines that police services could be sold by freely competitive firms; that a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and contract. And in fact, notes the anarcho-capitalist, a great deal of modern law (such as the Anglo-American common law) originated not in legislatures, but from the decentralized rulings of judges. (The anarcho-capitalist shares Kropotkin's interest in customary law, but normally believes that it requires extensive modernization and articulation.) 

The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration and mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability to supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of necessity a government monopoly. In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government services would take over all legitimate security services. One plausible market structure would involve individuals subscribing to one of a large number of competing police services; these police services would then set up contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between members of each others' agencies. Alternately, police services might be "bundled" with housing services, just as landlords often bundle water and power with rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to residents in gated communities and apartment complexes. 

The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second, firms will want to develop long- term business relationships, and hence be willing to negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term profitability. And third, aggressive firms would be likely to attract only high-risk clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs (a problem parallel to the well-known "adverse selection problem" in e.g. medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people are especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the price when riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a uniform price regardless of risk). Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that their "private police agencies" would be equivalent to today's Mafia -- the cost advantages of open, legitimate business would make "criminal police" uncompetitive. As David Friedman explains in The Machinery of Freedom, "Perhaps the best way to see why anarcho-capitalism would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives in a housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France announces that because of troubles with neighboring countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals, and twenty-seven war correspondents." 

(Moreover, anarcho-capitalists argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might kill each other over turf, but liquor-store owners generally do not.) 

Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no objection to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim that punishment does not deter crime to be the height of naivete. Traditional punishment might be meted out after a conviction by a neutral arbitrator; or a system of monetary restitution (probably in conjunction with a prison factory system) might exist instead. A convicted criminal would owe his victim compensation, and would be forced to work until he paid off his debt. Overall, anarcho-capitalists probably lean more towards the restitutionalist rather than the pure retributivist position. 

Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the need for a generally recognized libertarian legal code (which he thinks could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is probably over-stated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits that "focal points" including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe and somewhat standardize the menu of available legal codes. 

Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or worker-owned firms would be penalized or prohibited in an anarcho-capitalist society. It would be more accurate to state that while individuals would be free to voluntarily form communitarian organizations, the anarcho- capitalist simply doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent. However, in theory an "anarcho-capitalist" society might be filled with nothing but communes or worker- owned firms, so long as these associations were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined voluntarily and capital was obtained with the consent of the owners) and individuals retained the right to exit and set up corporations or other profit-making, individualistic firms. 

On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all from the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatized and opened to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic behavior should be done away with. Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able to care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot. (Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.) 

For a detailed discussion of the economics of privatization of dispute resolution, rule creation, and enforcement, see my "The Economics of Non-State Legal Systems," which is archived with my other economics writings. 

11. Какая существует критика анархизма?

Anarchism of various breeds has been criticized from an extremely wide range of perspectives. State-socialists, classical liberals, and conservatives have each on occasion examined anarchist theorists and found them wanting. After considering the unifying argument endorsed by virtually all of the critics of anarchism, we shall turn to the more specific attacks of Marxist, moderate libertarian, and conservative lineage. 

a. "Анархическое общество в отсутствие любой централизованной принудительной власти быстро деградировало бы в хаос и насилие"

The most common criticism, shared by the entire range of critics, is basically that anarchism would swiftly degenerate into a chaotic Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Thus the communist Friedrich Engels wonders "[H]ow these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us." He continues: "The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous; but as to how society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again maintains silence." And similarly, the classical liberal Ludwig von Mises states that "An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government." 

Or to consider a perhaps less ideological writer, Thomas Hobbes implicitly criticizes anarchist theory when he explains that "Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man." Hobbes goes on to add that "It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before." Since it is in the interest of the strong to take what they want from the weak, the absence of government lead inexorably to widespread violence and the prevention or destruction of civilization itself. 

Anarchists of all varieties would reject this argument; sometimes claiming that the critic misunderstands their position, other times that the critic's assumptions are too pessimistic. Kropotkin, for example, would seriously dispute the claim that war is the natural state of ungoverned human beings; like many other species of animals, cooperation is more common, natural, and likely. Left- anarchists generally would normally object that these criticisms rest upon contingent cultural assumptions arising from a competitive scarcity economy. Replace these institutions with humane and egalitarian ones; then poverty, the cause of crime and aggression, would greatly decrease. Finally, many left- anarchists envisage cooperatives and communes adopting and enforcing rules of appropriate conduct for those who wish to join. 

The anarcho-capitalist would likely protest that the critic misunderstands his view: he does believe that police and laws are necessary and desirable, and merely holds that they could be supplied by the free market rather than government. More fundamentally, he doubts the game- theoretic underpinnings of Hobbes' argument, for it ignores the likelihood that aggressive individuals or firms will provoke retaliation. Just as territorial animals fight when defending their territory, but yield when confronted on the territory of another animal, rational self-interested individuals and firms would usually find aggression a dangerous and unprofitable practice. In terms of game theory, the anarcho-capitalist thinks that Hobbes' situation is a Hawk-Dove game rather than a Prisoners' Dilemma. (In the Prisoners' Dilemma, war/non-cooperation would be a strictly dominant strategy; in a Hawk-Dove game there is normally a mixed-strategy equilibrium in which cooperation/peace is the norm but a small percentage of players continue to play war/non-cooperation.) Self- interested police firms would gladly make long-term arbitration contracts with each other to avoid mutually destructive bloodshed. 

(To view an excellent short related essay on anarchism and game theory, click here.) 

b. Марксистская критика левого анархизма

Одна из наиболее известных кампаний против анархизма была развёрнута Карлом Марксом во время его споров с Прудоном и Бакуниным. Конечным результатом этой затянувшейся словесной баталии был раскол рабочего движения 19-го века на две чётко различающиеся фракции. В двадцатом веке, словесная война закончилась потасовкой, хотя марксисты-ленинисты иногда сотрудничали с анархистами в период ранних стадий русской и испанской революций, насильственная борьба между ними была скорее правилом нежели исключением.

У Маркса было по крайней мере три чётко выраженных аргумента против своих оппонентов анархистов.

Во первых, развитие социализма должно следовать определённому историческому курсу, в то время как анархисты ошибочно полагали, что социализм можно создать одной силой воли. «Радикальная социальная революция связана с определенными историческими условиями экономического развития; последние являются ее предпосылкой. Она, следовательно, возможна только там, где вместе с капиталистическим производством промышленный пролетариат занимает, по меньшей мере, значительное место в народной массе». Маркс продолжает: «Он [Бакунин] абсолютно ничего не смыслит в социальной революции ...Ее экономические условия для него не существуют. ...Он хочет, чтобы европейская социальная революция, основывающаяся на экономическом базисе капиталистического производства, произошла на уровне русских или славянских земледельческих и пастушеских народов ...Воля, а не экономические условия, является основой его социальной революции.»  Прудон, согласно Марксу, страдает от того же самого незнания истории и ее законов:«Г-н Прудон вместо действительного хода истории преподносит нам фантасмагорию, которая претендует на то, чтобы быть диалектической фантасмагорией... С его точки зрения человек — только орудие, которым идея или вечный разум пользуются для своего развития.»///

Second, Marx ridiculed Bakunin's claim that a socialist government would become a new despotism by socialist intellectuals. In light of the prophetic accuracy of Bakunin's prediction in this area, Marx's reply is almost ironic: "Under collective ownership the so-called people's will disappears to make way for the real will of the cooperative." It is on this point that most left-anarchists reasonably claim complete vindication; just as Bakunin predicted, the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat" swiftly became a ruthless "dictatorship over the proletariat." 

Finally, Marx stated that the anarchists erroneously believed that the government supported the capitalist system rather than the other way around. In consequence, they were attacking the wrong target and diverting the workers' movement from its proper course. Engels delineated the Marxist and left-anarchist positions quite well: "Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself." The left-anarchist would probably accept this as a fair assessment of their disagreement with the Marxists, but point out how in many historical cases since (and before) Marx's time governments have steered their countries towards very different aims and policies, whereas capitalists are often fairly adaptive and passive. 

c. Нападки минархистов на анархо-капитализм

Probably the earliest minarchist attack on anarcho- capitalism may be found in Ayn Rand's essay "The Nature of Government." ("Minarchism" designates the advocacy of a "minimal" or nightwatchman state, supplying only police, courts, a legal system, and national defense.) Her critique contained four essential arguments. The first essentially repeated Hobbes' view that society without government would collapse into violent chaos. The second was that anarcho-capitalist police firms would turn to war as soon as a dispute broke out between individuals employing different protection agencies: "[S]uppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones' house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there." Her third argument was that anarcho-capitalism was an expression of an irrational subjectivist epistemology which would allow each person to decide for himself or herself whether the use of physical force was justified. Finally, her fourth argument was that anarcho-capitalism would lack an objective legal code (meaning, presumably, both publicly known and morally valid). 

Rand's arguments were answered at length in Roy Childs' "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand," which tried to convince her that only the anarcho-capitalist position was consistent with her view that the initiation of force was immoral. In brief, Childs argued that like other free-market institutions, private police would have economic incentives to perform their tasks peacefully and efficiently: police would negotiate arbitration agreements in advance precisely to avoid the kind of stand-off that Rand feared, and an objective legal code could be developed by free-market judges. Childs strongly contested Rand's claim that anarcho-capitalism had any relation to irrationalism; an individual could be rational or irrational in his judgment to use defensive violence, just as a government could be rational or irrational in its judgment to do so. As Childs queried, "By what epistemological criterion is an individual's action classified as 'arbitrary,' while that of a group of individuals is somehow 'objective'?" 

Robert Nozick launched the other famous attempt to refute the anarcho-capitalist on libertarian grounds. Basically, Nozick argued that the supply of police and legal services was a geographic natural monopoly, and that therefore a state would emerge by the "invisible hand" processes of the market itself. The details of his argument are rather complex: Nozick postulated a right, strongly contested by other libertarians, to prohibit activities which were exceptionally risky to others; he then added that the persons whose actions were so prohibited were entitled to compensation. Using these two principles, Nozick claimed that the dominant protection agency in a region could justifiably prohibit competition on the grounds that it was "too risky," and therefore become an "ultra-minimal state." But at this point, it would be obligated to compensate consumers who were prohibited from purchasing competitors' services, so it would do so in kind by giving them access to its own police and legal services -- thereby becoming a minimal state. And none of these steps, according to Nozick, violates libertarian rights. 

There have been literally dozens of anarchist attacks on Nozick's derivation of the minimal state. To begin with, no state arose in the manner Nozick describes, so all existing states are illegitimate and still merit abolition. Secondly, anarcho-capitalists dispute Nozick's assumption that defense is a natural monopoly, noting that the modern security guard and arbitration industries are extremely decentralized and competitive. Finally, they reject Nozick's principles of risk and compensation, charging that they lead directly to the despotism of preventive law. 

d. Консервативная критика анархизма

The conservative critique of anarchism is much less developed, but can be teased out of the writings of such authors as Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Ernest van den Haag. (Interestingly, Burke scholars are still debating whether the early Burke's quasi-anarchistic A Vindication of Natural Society was a serious work or a subtle satire.) 

Burke would probably say that, like other radical ideologues, the anarchists place far too much reliance on their imperfect reason and not enough on the accumulated wisdom of tradition. Society functions because we have gradually evolved a system of workable rules. It seems certain that Burke would apply his critique of the French revolutionaries with equal force to the anarchists: "They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things, because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery." To attempt to replace the wisdom of the ages with a priori theories of justice is sure to lead to disaster, because functional policies must be judicious compromises between important competing ends. Or in Burke's words, "The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught a priori. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science; because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate." The probable result of any attempt to realize anarchist principles would be a brief period of revolutionary zeal, followed by chaos and social breakdown resulting from the impracticality of the revolutionary policies, and finally ending in a brutal dictator winning widespread support by simply restoring order and rebuilding the people's sense of social stability. 

Many anarchists would in fact accept Burke's critique of violent revolution, which is why they favor advancing their views gradually through education and nonviolent protest. In fact, Bakunin's analysis of Marxism as the ideology (i.e., rationalization for the class interests of) middle-class intellectuals in fact differs little from Burke's analysis: Bakunin, like Burke, perceived that no matter how oppressive the current system may be, there are always power-hungry individuals who favor violent revolution as their most practical route to absolute power. Their protests against actual injustices must be seen in light of their ultimate aim of imposing even more ruthless despotism upon the people. 

On other issues, anarchists would disagree strongly with several of Burke's claims. Many forms of misery stem from the blind adherence to tradition; and rational thinking has sparked countless improvements in human society ever since the decline of traditional despotism. Moreover, anarchists do not propose to do away with valuable traditions, but simply request evidence that particular traditions are valuable before they lend them their support. And what is to be done when -- as is usually the case -- a society harbors a wide range of mutually incompatible traditions? 

Anarchists might also object that the Burkean analysis relies too heavily upon tradition as a result rather than a process. Cultural evolution may constantly weed out foolish ideas and practices, but it hardly follows that such follies have already perished; for the state to defend tradition is to strangle the competitive process which tends to make tradition sensible. As Vincent Cook explains: "[I]t is precisely because wisdom has to be accumulated in incremental steps that it cannot be centrally planned by any single political or religious authority, contrary to the aspirations of conservatives and collectivists alike. While the collectivists are indeed guilty of trying to rationalistically reconstruct society in defiance of tradition (a valid criticism of left-anarchists), conservatives on the other hand are guilty of trying to freeze old traditions in place. Conservatives have forgotten that the process of wisdom accumulation is an on-going one, and instead have opted for the notion that some existing body of traditions (usually Judeo-Christian) already represent social perfection." 

Russell Kirk, noted Burke scholar, has written a brief critique of the modern libertarian movement. (Another conservative, Ernest van den Haag, wrote a lengthier essay with a similar theme and perspective.) In all likelihood, Kirk would apply many (but not all) of the same arguments to left-anarchists. 

Kirk faults the libertarians (and when he discusses "libertarians" he usually seems to have the anarcho- capitalists in mind) on at least six counts. First, they deny the existence of a "transcendent moral order." Second, order is prior to liberty, and liberty is possible only after government establishes a constitutional order. Third, libertarians assume that self-interest is the only possible social bond, ignoring the broader communitarian vision of human nature found in both the Aristotelian and Judeo- Christian traditions. Fourth, libertarians erroneously assume that human beings are naturally good or at least perfectible. Fifth, the libertarian foolishly attacks the state as such, rather than merely its abuses. Sixth and last, the libertarian is an arrogant egoist who disregards valuable ancient beliefs and customs. 

Left-anarchists would perhaps agree with Kirk on points three and six. So if Kirk were to expand his attack on anarchism to encompass the left-anarchists as well, he might acquit them of these two charges. The remaining four, however, Kirk would probably apply equally to anarchists of both varieties. 

How would anarchists reply to Kirk's criticisms? On the "moral transcendence" issue, they would point out there have been religious as well as non-religious anarchists; and moreover, many non-religious anarchists still embrace moral objectivism (notably anarchists in the broader natural law tradition). Most anarchists would deny that they make self- interest the only possible social bond; and even those who would affirm this (such as anarcho-capitalists influenced by Ayn Rand) have a broad conception of self-interest consistent with the Aristotelian tradition. 

As to the priority of order over liberty, many anarchists influenced by e.g. Kropotkin would reply that as with other animal species, order and cooperation emerge as a result, not a consequence of freedom; while anarcho- capitalists would probably refer Kirk to the theorists of "spontaneous order" such as Hayek, Hume, Smith, and even Edmund Burke himself. 

The FAQ addresses the questions of human perfectibility and utopianism in sections 20 and 21. As for Kirk's final point, most anarchists would reply that they happily accept valuable customs and traditions, but believe that they have shown that some ancient practices and institutions -- above all, the state --have no value whatever. 

e. "Мы уже в состоянии анархии"

Under anarchy, it is conceivable that e.g. a brutal gang might use its superior might to coerce everyone else to do as they wish. With nothing more powerful than the gang, there would (definitionally) be nothing to stop them. But how does this differ from what we have now? Governments rule because they have the might to maintain their power; in short, because there is no superior agency to restrain them. Hence, reason some critics of anarchism, the goal of anarchists is futile because we are already in a state of anarchy. 

This argument is confused on several levels. 

First, it covertly defines anarchy as unrestrained rule of the strongest, which is hardly what most anarchists have in mind. (Moreover, it overlooks the definitional differences between government and other forms of organized aggression; Weber in particular noted that governments claim a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a given geographical region.) In fact, while anarchism is logically compatible with any viewpoint which rejects the existence of the state, there have been extremely few (perhaps no) anarchists who combined their advocacy of anarchism with support for domination by those most skilled in violence. 

Second, it seems to assume that all that particular anarchists advocate is the abolition of the state; but as we have seen, anarchism is normally combined with additional normative views about what ought to replace the state. Thus, most anarchist theorists believe more than merely that the state should not exist; they also believe that e.g. society should be based upon voluntary communes, or upon strict private property rights, etc. 

Third, the argument sometimes confuses a definitional with a causal claim. It is one thing to argue that anarchy would lead to the rule by the strongest; this is a causal claim about the likely results of the attempt to create an anarchist society. It is another thing entirely to argue that anarchy means rule by the strongest. This is simply a linguistic confusion, best illustrated by noting that under this definition anarchy and the state are logically compatible. 

A related but more sophisticated argument, generally leveled against anarcho- capitalists, runs as follows. If competing protection agencies could prevent the establishment of an abusive, dominant firm, while don't they do so now? In short, if market checks against the abuse of power actually worked, we wouldn't have a state in the first place. 

There are two basic replies to this argument. First of all, it completely ignores the ideological factor. Anarcho- capitalists are thinking of how competing firms would prevent the rise of abusive protection monopolists in a society where most people don't support the existence of such a monopolist. It is one thing to suppress a "criminal firm" when it stands condemned by public opinion and the values internalized by that firm's employees; it is another thing entirely to suppress our current "criminal firms" (i.e., governments) when qua institution enjoy the overwhelming support of the populace and the state's enforcers believe in their own cause. When a governing class loses confidence in its own legitimacy -- from the Ancien Regime in France to the Communist Party in the USSR -- it becomes vulnerable and weak. Market checks on government could indeed establish an anarchist society if the self-confidence of the governing class were severely eroded by anarchist ideas. 

Secondly, the critique ignores the possibility of multiple social equilibria. If everyone drives on the right side of the road, isolated attempts to switch to the left side will be dangerous and probably unsuccessful. But if everyone drives on the left side of the road, the same danger exists for those who believe that the right side is superior and plan to act on their believe. Similarly, it is quite possible that given that a government exists, the existence of government is a stable equilibrium; but if a system of competitive protection firms existed, that too would be a stable equilibrium. In short, just because one equilibrium exists and is stable doesn't mean that it is the only possible equilibrium. Why then is the state so pervasive if it is just one possible equilibrium? The superiority of this equilibrium is one possible explanation; but it could also be due to ideology, or an inheritance from our barbarous ancestors. 

12. Какие еще есть анархистские точки зрения?

Есть определенно другое течение анархистской мысли, хотя оно намного неопределеннее и предлагает меньше, чем взгляды, уже объясненные. Для некоторых, "анархист" -- это только заявление о восстании против правил и власти любого вида. В этом случае не делается попытки, чтобы объяснить как общество работало бы без правительства; и, возможно, нет большой уверенности, что оно могло бы это сделать. Этот вид анархизма больше позиция или эмоция -- это ощущение, что испорченный мир настоящего должен исчезнуть в огне, без каких-либо определенных альтернатив, что, если что-нибудь вообще, было бы предпочтительнее и возможно. За неимением лучшего термина я назвал бы это "эмоциональным анархизмом", чьим наиболее выдающимся представителем почти определенно был Макс Штирнер (хотя, если быть справедливым к Штирнеру, он все же кратко описывал свое видение того, как существующее общество можно заменить неким "Союзом эгоистов".

Для эмоционального анархиста оппозиция государству это только частный случай его или ее оппозиции по отношению почти ко всему: семье, традиционному искусству, буржуазной культуре, обеспеченным пожилым людям, британской монархии и т.д. Эта позиция, когда ясно высказана, часто трудно понимаема, поскольку она, кажется, стремится к уничтожению без какой-либо альтернативы или довода, что что-либо другое было бы предпочтительнее. С эмоциональным анархизмом близко связан нигилистский анархизм, который иногда имеет более теоретический характер. Анархо-нигилисты сочетают оппозицию эмоциональных анархистов фактически ко всем формам порядка с радикальной субъективистской моралью и эпистемологической теорией.

For the emotivist anarchist, opposition to the state is just a special case of his or her opposition to almost everything: the family, traditional art, bourgeois culture, comfortable middle-aged people, the British monarchy, etc. This position, when articulated, is often difficult to understand, for it seems to seek destruction without any suggestion or argument that anything else would be preferable. Closely linked to emotivist anarchism, though sometimes a little more theoretical, is nihilist anarchism. The anarcho-nihilists combine the emotivist's opposition to virtually all forms of order with radical subjectivist moral and epistemological theory. 

Еще одно течение менее интеллектуальной, более эмоциональной анархистской мысли родствено эмоциональному анархизму. Оно кем-то было названо "моральный анархизм". Взгляды этого течения также подразумевают, что существующее статичное общество плохо; но вместо того, чтобы предложить какие-либо всеохватывающие планы для его отмены, это подразделение анархистов выступает за немедленные реформы. Подобный анархизм -- это разновидность идеальной мечты, красивой и вдохновляющей, чтобы созерцать ее, в то время как преследуешь более конкретные цели.

Эмоциональный анархист часто сосредотачивается на действии и призирает теоретизирование. Другая порода анархистов, известная как "философичные анархисты", напротив, видит мало возможностей практического применения своей интеллектуальной позиции. Лучше всего изложенный Робертом Полем Вольффом, философский анархизм просто отрицает, что государственные приказы, как таковые, могут иметь какую бы то ни было законность. Каждый индивидуум должен развивать свою моральную автономию, чтобы самому судить о добре и зле независимо от декретов государства. Однако, пока декреты государства согласуются с личной совестью, нет необходимости менять поведение. В сущности, позиция по Вольффу подразумевает, что разумный человек не может и не должен слепо повиноваться власти, чего, как кажется, часто требует правительство; но этот подход не требует каких-либо политических действий, если декреты правительства не являются чрезвычайно безнравственными.

Еще одна фракция, на которую сильно повлиял Лев Толстой, называет себя "христианские анархисты". (Толстой избегал термина "анархист", вероятно, из-за ассоциации в умах русских современников с насилием и терроризмом.) Привлекая в помощь евангелийские понятия ненасилия и равенства всех людей, эти анархисты осуждают правительство за противоположность христианскому учению. Толстой особенно подчеркивал безнравственность войны, военной службы и патриотизма, требуя от христиан жить согласно радикальным требованиям их веры путем отказа от поддержки всех этих трех зол. Очерк Толстого "Патриотизм или мир?" особенно известен своей ранней атакой на национализм и кровопролитие, обычно сопровождающее его.

Наконец, у многих левых и прогрессивных движений есть анархистское толкование и анархистские защитники. Например, существует фракция феминисток, называющих себя "анархо-феминистками". И зеленое движение и движение защитников окружающей среды также включают сильное анархистское крыло, где сочетаются оппозиция государству и защита окружающей среды. Вероятно, их главный теоретик -- Мюррей Букчин, он (в последнее время) проповедует идею общества, состоящего из маленьких и довольно независимых местных общин. Как объясняет Букчин, "анархистская концепция сбалансированной общины, демократия лицом к лицу, гуманистическая технология и децентрализованное общество -- эти ценнейшие либертарианские концепции -- не только желательны, они также необходимы". Такой институт, как городское собрание классической демократической теории, указывает путь радикальной реорганизации общества, к созданию такого уклада, при котором малые заинтересованные в сохранении природы общины регулярно собираются, чтобы обсудить и проголосовать по вопросам производства в их общинах и по более широким вопросам. Несомненно, есть много других слияний между анархизмом и прогрессивными движениями и их возникает все больше, по мере возникновения новых проблем.

Какие нравственные оправдания анархизму могут быть предложены?

Опять-таки, есть очень много предложенных ответов. Некоторые, такие как эмоциональные анархисты и (как это ни парадоксально) нравственные анархисты, имеют небольшой интерес в нравственной теории высокого уровня. Но это представляет интерес для более интеллектуального подразделения анархистов.

Один популярный довод за анархизм таков, что это единственный путь для существования истинного социализма. Государственный социализм не способен к фактическому установлению человеческого равенства; вместо этого он просто создает новый правящий класс. Бакунин пророчески предсказал результат захвата контроля над государством социалистами, когда он писал, что социалистическая элита образует "новый класс", который будет "самым аристократичным, деспотичным, высокомерным, презрительным из всех режимов". В другом месте Бакунин писал, что "свобода без социализма -- это привилегии и несправедливость, ... Социализм без свободы -- рабство и жестокость". Конечно, социализм защищали как на деонтологическом, так и на прагматичном основаниях, и нет необходимости повторять это здесь.

С другой стороны, анархо-капиталисты спорили, что только при анархизме "права человека на личную жизнь и собственность" Локка, так громко защищаемые более умеренными либертарианцами, могут полностью уважаться. Любая попытка навязать монополистическое правительство обязательным образом предотвращает конкурирование полицейских и судебных служб по предоставлению законных услуг; кроме того, пока существует правительство, будет и налогообложение. Заявление правительства о защите частной собственности является, таким образом, весьма ироничным, так как государство, по словам Ротбарда, является "учреждением, которое полагает, что "защищает" человека и собственность, само существуя на одностороннем принуждении, направленном против частной собственности, известном как налогообложение. Другие анархо-капиталисты, такие как Дэвид Фридман, считают эти доводы из естественных прав Локка неубедительными, и вместо этого пытаются доказать, что прагматичное оправдание Адама Смита капитализма свободного рынка применимо также к свободным рынкам в сфере защитных услуг, делая государство бесполезным, также как и опасным.

Третьи анархисты, такие как Лисандр Спунер и Бенджамин Такер, также как Прудон, утверждали, что анархизм отменил бы эксплуатацию, присущую доходам с процентов и ренте, просто посредством свободной конкуренции. По их мнению, только трудовая прибыль законна и важный в пользу анархизма аргумент таков, что без навязанных государством монополий, нетрудовой доход снизился бы до нуля под действием рыночных сил. Однако, неясно, расценивают ли они это как просто желательный побочный эффект и отвергли бы они анархизм, если бы узнали, что этот предсказанный экономический эффект в действительности не случится. (Другие индивидуалистические анархисты спорили, в противоположность Спунеру и Такеру, что свободная банковская практика привела бы к более низкому уровню инфляции, чем мы испытываем сейчас; что рента и проценты возникают не из-за "монополии", а из-за недостатка земли и фондов для займа; и что нет нравственного различия между трудовым доходом и доходом с процентов и ренты, которые все зависят от комплекса факторов, таких как дефицит, спрос, удача и усилия человека.)

Основное нравственное интуитивное положение, которое, возможно, разделяют анархисты всех разновидностей, это просто то, что ни один человек не имеет права управлять другим человеком. Определение "управления", однако, различается: левые анархисты склонны видеть отношения работодатель -- работник как случай "управления", а анархо-капиталисты часто сомневаются на счет заявления, что предлагаемые анархистские коммуны будут демократичными и, следовательно, добровольными. Близко родственное моральное интуитивное положение, опять широко разделяемое всеми подразделениями анархистов, заключается в том, что каждый человек должен развивать личную независимость, или самоуравление. Человек должен критически относиться к авторитетам и решить все сам, нежели просто идти за стадом. И снова, толкование "личной независимости" различается: лево-анархист видит отношения работодатель -- работник как нарушение личной независимости, тогда как анархо-капиталист скорее видит, что личная независимость, исчезает в коммуне или коллективе, как бы демократичны они ни были.

Каковы основные дебаты между анархистами? Какие аргументы периодически повторяются?

14. What are the major debates between anarchists? What are the recurring arguments? 

"X это не "настоящий анархизм"" 

a. "X is not 'true anarchism.'" 

One of the least fruitful of these sub-debates is the frequent attempt of one side to define the other out of existence ("You are not truly an anarchist, for anarchists must favor [abolition of private property, atheism, Christianity, etc.]") In addition to being a trivial issue, the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private property (merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such). 

As Benjamin Tucker wrote in 1887, "It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products." 

"Анархизм варианта X является неустойчивым и приведет к возрождению государства."

b. "Anarchism of variant X is unstable and will lead to the re-emergence of the state." 

A more substantive variation is to argue that the opposing anarchism would be unstable and lead to the swift re- emergence of government. Thus, the left-anarchists often argue that the defense corporations envisaged by anarcho- capitalists would war with one another until one came out as the new government; or else they would collude to establish themselves as the new capitalist oligarchs. As Noam Chomsky says in an interview with Ulrike Heider, "The predatory forces of the market would destroy society, would destroy community, and destroy the workforce. Nothing would be left except people hating each other and fighting each other." Anarcho-capitalists reply that this grossly underestimates the degree of competition likely to prevail in the defense industry; that war is likely to be very unprofitable and dangerous, and is more likely to be provoked by ideology than sober profit-maximization; and that economic theory and economic history show that collusion is quite difficult to maintain. 

Anarcho-capitalists for their part accuse the left-anarchists of intending to impose their communal vision upon everyone; since everyone will not go along voluntarily, a government will be needed to impose it. Lest we think that this argument is a recent invention, it is interesting to find that essentially this argument raged in the 19th- century anarchist movement as well. In John MacKay's The Anarchists, we see the essential dialogue between individualist and collectivist anarchism has a longer history than one might think: 

"Would you, in the system of society which you call 'free Communism' prevent individuals from exchanging their labor among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: Would you prevent them from occupying land for the purpose of personal use?"... [The] question was not to be escaped. If he answered "Yes!" he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and threw overboard the autonomy of the individual which he had always zealously defended; if on the other hand he answered "No!" he admitted the right of private property which he had just denied so emphatically ... Then he answered "In Anarchy any number of men must have the right of forming a voluntary association, and so realizing their ideas in practice. Nor can I understand how any one could justly be driven from the land and house which he uses and occupies ... [E]very serious man must declare himself: for Socialism, and thereby for force and against liberty, or for Anarchism, and thereby for liberty and against force."

"В анархическом обществе, в котором существуют системы X и Y сразу, X неизбежно вытеснит Y."

c. "In an anarchist society in which both systems X and Y existed, X would inevitably outcompete Y." 

Again, this argument has been made from several perspectives. Left-anarchists have argued that if workers had the genuine option to work for a capitalist employer, or else work for themselves in a worker cooperative, virtually all workers would choose the latter. Moreover, workers in a worker-managed firm would have higher morale and greater incentive to work hard compared with workers who just worked for the benefit of their employer. Hence, capitalists would be unable to pay their workers wages competitive with the wages of the labor-managed firm, and by force of competition would gradually vanish. 

Anarcho-capitalists find that the argument works in precisely the opposite direction. For what is a worker-owned firm if not a firm in which the workers jointly hold all of the stock? Now this is a peculiarly irrational portfolio to hold, because it means that workers would, in effect, put all their eggs in one basket; if their firm does well, they grow rich, but if their firm goes bankrupt, they lose everything. It would make much more sense for workers to exchange their shares in their own firm to buy shares in other firms in order to insure themselves against risk. Thus, the probable result of worker-owned firms with negotiable shares would be that workers would readily and advantageously sell off most of their shares in their own firm in order to diversify their portfolios. The end result is likely to be the standard form of capitalist organization, in which workers receive a fixed payment for their services and the owners of the firms' shares earn the variable profits. Of course, alienation of shares could be banned, but this appears to do nothing except force workers to live with enormous financial risk. None of this shows that worker-owned firms could not persist if the workers were so ideologically committed to worker control that their greater productivity outweighed the riskiness of the workers' situation; but anarcho-capitalists doubt very much that such intense ideology would prevail in more than a small portion of the population. Indeed, they expect that the egalitarian norms and security from dismissal that left-anarchists typically favor would grossly undermine everyone's incentive to work hard and kill abler workers' desire for advancement. 

"Анархизм типа X будет хуже, чем государство ".

d. "Anarchism of type X would be worse than the state."

To the left-anarchist, the society envisaged by the anarcho- capitalists often seems far worse than what we have now. For it is precisely to the inequality, exploitation, and tyranny of modern capitalism that they object, and rather than abolishing it the anarcho-capitalist proposes to unleash its worst features and destroy its safety net. Noam Chomsky, for instance, has suggested that anarcho-capitalists focus incorrectly on state domination, failing to recognize the underlying principle of opposition to all domination, including the employer-employee relationship. Overall, since anarcho-capitalism relies heavily on laissez-faire economic theory, and since left-anarchists see no validity to laissez-faire economic theory, it seems to the latter that anarcho-capitalism would be a practical disaster. Left- anarchists often equate anarcho-capitalism with social Darwinism and even fascism, arguing that the cruel idea of "survival of the fittest" underlies them all. 

И т.д.

e. Etc.

Каким образом анархисты справлялись бы с проблемой "общественных благ"? 

Современные неоклассические (или "мейнстрим") экономисты - особенно те, которые связаны с теоретической экономикой благосостояния - имеют несколько важных аргументов в пользу необходимости или желательности наличия правительства. Из всех этих, так называемая проблема "общественных благ" звучит уж точно чаще всех остальных. На самом деле, многие академики считают ее драконовским оправданием для существования и ограничений государства. Анархо-капиталисты часто очень знакомы с этим типом мышления и тратят значительное количество время на то чтобы опровергать его; лево-анархисты в большинстве случаев менее заинтересованы, но всё равно полезно посмотреть, что на этот может сказать лево-анархист.

Modern neoclassical (or "mainstream") economists -- especially those associated with theoretical welfare economics -- have several important arguments for the necessity or desirability of government. Out of all of these, the so-called "public goods" problem is surely the most frequently voiced. In fact, many academics consider it a rigorous justification for the existence and limits of the state. Anarcho-capitalists are often very familiar with this line of thought and spend considerable time trying to refute it; left- anarchists are generally less interested, but it is still useful to see how the left-anarchist might respond. 

We will begin by explaining the concept of Pareto optimality, show how the Pareto criterion is used to justify state action, and then examine how anarchists might object to the underlying assumptions of these economic justifications for the state. After exploring the general critique, we will turn to the problem of public goods (and the closely related externalities issue). After showing how many economists believe that these problems necessitate government action, we will consider how left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists might reply. 

a. The concept and uses of Pareto optimality in economics

The most widely-used concept in theoretical welfare economics is "Pareto optimality" (also known as "Pareto efficiency"). An allocation is Pareto-optimal iff it is impossible to make at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off; a Pareto improvement is a change in an allocation which makes someone better off without making anyone else worse off. As Hal Varian's Microeconomic Analysis explains, "[A] Pareto efficient allocation is one for which each agent is as well off as possible, given the utilities of the other agents." "Better" and "worse" are based purely upon subjective preferences which can be summarized in a "utility function," or ordinal numerical index of preference satisfaction. 

While initially it might seem that every situation is necessarily Pareto optimal, this is not the case. True, if the only good is food, and each agent wants as much food as possible, then every distribution is Pareto optimal. But if half of the agents own food and the other half own clothes, the distribution will not necessarily be Pareto optimal, since each agent might prefer either more food and fewer clothes or vice versa. 

Normally, economists would expect agents to voluntarily trade in any situation which is not Pareto optimal; but neoclassical theorists have considered a number of situations in which trade would be a difficult route to Pareto optimality. For example, suppose that each agent is so afraid of the other that they avoid each other, even though they could both benefit from interaction. What they need is an independent and powerful organization to e.g. protect both agents from each other so that they can reach a Pareto-optimal allocation. What they need, in short, is the state. While economists' examples are usually more elaborate, the basic intuition is that government is necessary to satisfy the seemingly uncontroversial principle of Pareto optimality. 

Anarchists of all sorts would immediately object that the very existence of deontological anarchists shows that Pareto optimality can never justify state action. If even the slightest increase in the level of state activity incompensably harms the deontological anarchist, then obviously it is never true that state action can make some people better off without making any others worse off. Moreover, virtually all government action makes some people better off and other people worse off, so plainly the pursuit of Pareto improvements has little to do with what real governments do. 

Due to these difficulties, in practice economists must base their judgments upon the far more controversial judgments of cost-benefit analysis. (In the works of Richard Posner, this economistic cost-benefit approach to policy decisions is called "wealth-maximization"; a common synonym is "Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.") With cost-benefit analysis, there is no pretense made that government policy enjoys unanimous approval. Thus, it is open to the many objections frequently made to e.g. utilitarianism; moreover, since cost-benefit analysis is based upon agents' willingness to pay, rather than on agents' utility, it runs into even more moral paradoxes than utilitarianism typically does. 

Проблема общественных благ

b. The public goods problem

The "public goods" argument is certainly the most popular economic argument for the state. It allegedly shows that the existence of government can be Pareto optimal, and that the non-existence of the state cannot be Pareto optimal; or at least, it shows that the existence of government is justifiable on cost-benefit grounds. Supposedly, there exist important services, such as national defense, which benefit people whether they pay for them or not. The result is that selfish agents refuse to contribute, leading to disaster. The only way to solve this problem is to coerce the beneficiaries to raise the funds to supply the needed good. In order for this coercion to work, it needs to be monopolized by a single agency, the state. 

Public goods arguments have been made not only for national defense, but for police, roads, education, R&D, scientific research, and many other goods and services. The essential definitional feature of public goods is "non- excludability"; because the benefits cannot be limited to contributors, there is no incentive to contribute. (A second definitional characteristic often attributed to public goods is "non-rivalrousness"; my own view is that this second attribute just confuses the issue, since without the non- excludability problem, non-rivalrousness would merely be another instance of the ubiquitous practice of pricing above marginal cost.) 

The concept of externalities is very closely connected to the concept of public goods; the main difference is that economists usually think of externalities as being both "positive" (e.g. R&D spill-overs) and "negative" (e.g. pollution), whereas they usually don't discuss "public bads." In any case, again we have the problem that agents perform actions which harm or benefit other people, and the harm/benefit is "non-excludable." Victims of negative externalities can't feasibly charge polluters a fee for suffering, and beneficiaries of positive externalities can't feasibly be charged for their enjoyment. Government is supposed to be necessary to correct this inefficiency. (As usual, it is the inefficiency rather than the injustice that economists focus upon.) 

Возражение №1: Бихевиористское определение теории общественных благ ложно.

Objection #1: The behavorial assumptions of public goods theory are false.

It is simply not true that people always act in their narrow self-interest. Charity exists, and there is no reason to think that the charitable impulse might not be cultivated to handle public goods problems voluntarily on an adequate basis. Nor need charity as such be the only motive: in Social Contract, Free Ride, Anthony de Jasay lays out an "ethics turnpike" of possible voluntary solutions to serious public goods problems, moving from motivation from high moral principles, to "tribal" motivations, to economic motivations. As de Jasay writes, "On the map of the Ethics Turnpike ... three main segments are marked off according to the basic type of person most likely to find his congenial exit along it. The first segment is primarily for the type who fears God or acts as if he did. The second segment has exits to suit those who are not indifferent to how some or all their fellow men are faring, and who value only that (but not all that) which people want for themselves or for others. The third is for homo oeconomicus, maximizing a narrowly defined utility that varies only with the money's worth of his own payoffs." 

In short, much of the public goods problem is an artificial creation of economists' unrealistic assumptions about human nature. Anarchists would surely disagree among themselves about human nature, but almost all would agree that there is more to the human character than Hobbesian self-interest. Some people may be amoral, but most are not. Moreover, charitable impulses can even give incentives to uncharitable people to behave fairly. If the public boycotts products of polluters, the polluters may find that it is cheaper to clean up their act than lose the public's business. 

Возражение №2: Правительство - это не единственно возможный способ обеспечить общественные блага.

Objection #2: Government is not the only possible way to provide public goods.

Even if individuals act in their narrow self-interest, it is not true that government is the only way to manage public goods and externalities problems. Why couldn't a left- anarchist commune or an anarcho-capitalist police firm do the job that the neoclassical economist assumes must be delegated to the government? The left-anarchist would probably be particularly insistent on this point, since most economists usually assume that government and the market are the only ways to do things. But thriving, voluntary communities might build roads, regulate pollution, and take over other important tasks now handled by government. 

Возражение №3: Общественные блага встречаются реже, чем вы думаете.

Objection #3: Public goods are rarer than you might think.

Возражение #4: Экстерналии - результат ориентированного на прибыль мышления, которое было бы преодолено в анархическом обществе.

Objection #4: Externalities are a result of the profit-oriented mentality which would be tamed in an anarchist society.

Left-anarchists would emphasize that many externalities are caused by the profit-seeking system which the state supports. Firms pollute because it is cheaper than producing cleanly; but anarcho-syndicalist firms could pursue many aims besides profit. In a way, the state- capitalist system creates the problem of externalities by basing all decisions upon profit, and then claims that we need the state to protect us from the very results of this profit-oriented decision-making process. 

Возражение №5: Проблема общественных благ неизбежна.

Objection #5: The public goods problem is unavoidable.

Perhaps most fundamentally: government is not a solution to the public goods problem, but rather the primary instance of the problem. If you create a government to solve your public goods problems, you merely create a new public goods problem: the public good of restraining and checking the government from abusing its power. "[I]t is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government, that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey," wrote Thomas Paine; but what material incentive is there for individuals to help develop a vigilant national character? After all, surely it is a rare individual who appreciably affects the national culture during his or her lifetime. 

To rely upon democracy as a counter-balance simply assumes away the public goods problem. After all, intelligent, informed voting is a public good; everyone benefits if the electorate reaches wise political judgments, but there is no personal, material incentive to "invest" in political information, since the same result will (almost certainly) happen whether you inform yourself or not. It should be no surprise that people know vastly more about their jobs than about their government. Many economists seem to be aware of this difficulty; in particular, public choice theory in economics emphasizes the externalities inherent in government action. But a double standard persists: while non-governmental externalities must be corrected by the state, we simply have to quietly endure the externalities inherent in political process. 

Since there is no incentive to monitor the government, democracies must rely upon voluntary donations of intelligence and virtue. Because good government depends upon these voluntary donations, the public goods argument for government falls apart. Either unpaid virtue can make government work, in which case government isn't necessary to solve the public goods problem; or unpaid virtue is insufficient to make government work, in which case the government cannot be trusted to solve the public goods problem. 

Являются ли анархисты пацифистами?

16. Are anarchists pacifists?

Толстовский абсолютный пацифизм

a. Tolstoyan absolute pacifism

The primary anarchistic inspiration for pacifism in the first sense is probably Leo Tolstoy. Drawing his themes from the Gospels, Tolstoy argued that violence is always wrong, including defensive violence. This naturally leads Tolstoy to bitterly denounce warfare as well, but what is distinctive here is opposition to violence as such, whether offensive or defensive. Moreover, the stricture against defensive violence would appear to rule out not only retribution against criminals, but self-defense against an imminent attack. 

This Tolstoyan theme appears most strongly in the writings of Christian anarchists and pacifist anarchists, but it pops up quite frequently within the broader left-anarchist tradition. For example, Kropotkin looked upon criminals with pity rather than contempt, and argued that love and forgiveness rather than punishment was the only moral reaction to criminal behavior. With the self-described Christian and pacifist anarchists, the Tolstoyan position is a firm conviction; within the broader left-anarchist tradition, it would be better described as a tendency or general attitude. 

Some left-anarchists and virtually all anarcho-capitalists would strongly disagree with Tolstoy's absolute opposition to violence. (The only anarcho-capitalist to ever indicate agreement with the Tolstoyan position was probably Robert LeFevre.) Left-anarchist critics include the advocates of revolutionary terrorism or "propaganda by the deed" (discussed in section 22), as well as more moderate anti- Tolstoyans who merely uphold the right to use violence for self-defense. Of course, their definition of "self-defense" might very well include using violence to hinder immoral state actions or the functioning of the capitalist system. 

Пацифизм - это противоположность войны.

b. Pacifism as opposition to war

Almost all anarchists, in contrast, would agree in their condemnation of warfare, i.e., violent conflict between governments. Left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists both look upon wars as grotesque struggles between ruling elites who treat the lives of "their own" people as expendable and the lives of the "other side's" people as worthless. It is here that anarchism's strong distinction between society and the state becomes clearest: whereas most people see war as a struggle between societies, anarchists think that war is actually a battle between governments which greatly harms even the society whose government is victorious. What is most pernicious about nationalist ideology is that is makes the members of society identify their interests with those of their government, when in fact their interests are not merely different but in conflict. In short, anarchists of both sorts would readily accede to Randolph Bourne's remark that "War is the health of the state." 

Left-anarchists' opposition to war is quite similar to the general condemnation of war expressed by more mainstream international socialists. On this view, war is created by capitalism, in particular the struggle for access to markets in the Third World. "Workingmen have no country" and should refuse to support these intra-capitalist struggles; why should they pay the dire cost of war when victory will merely leave them more oppressed and exploited than before? Moreover, while Western democracies often advocate war in the name of justice and humanitarianism, the aim and/or end result is to defend traditional authoritarianism and destroy the lives of millions of innocent people. Within the Western democracies, the left- anarchist's hatred for war is often intensified by some sense of sympathy for indigenous revolutionary movements. While these movements are often state-socialist in intent, the left- anarchist often believes that these movements are less bad than the traditional authoritarianism against which they struggle. Moreover, the West's policy of propping up local dictators leads relatively non-authoritarian socialist movements to increasing degrees of totalitarianism. Noam Chomsky is almost certainly the most influential representative of the left-anarchist approach to foreign policy: He sees a consistent pattern of the United States proclaiming devotion to human rights while supporting dictatorships by any means necessary. 

The anarcho-capitalist critique of war is similar in many ways to e.g. Chomsky's analysis, but has a different lineage and emphasis. As can be seen particularly in Murray Rothbard's writings, the anarcho-capitalist view of war draws heavily upon both the anti-war classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the long-standing American isolationist tradition. Early classical liberal theorists such as Adam Smith,Richard Cobden, and John Bright (and later Norman Angell) argued that warfare was caused by mercantilism, by the prevailing alliance between governments and their favored business elites. The solution, in their view, was to end the incestuous connection between business and government. The American isolationists were probably influenced by this broader classical liberal tradition, but placed more emphasis on the idea that foreign wars were at best a silly distraction, and at worst a rationalization for tyranny. Both views argued that "balance of power" politics lead inevitably to endless warfare and unrestrained military spending. 

Существуют ли исторические примеры анархических обществ?

17. Have there been any historical examples of anarchist societies?

There have probably been no societies which fully satisfy any anarchists' ethical ideals, but there have been a number of suggestive examples. 

Left-anarchists most often cite the anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War as examples of viable anarchist societies. The role of the Spanish anarchists in the Spanish Civil War has perhaps generated more debate on alt.society.anarchy than any other historical issue. Since this FAQ is concerned primarily with theoretical rather than purely historical questions, the reader will have to search elsewhere for a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that left-anarchists generally believe that: (a) The Spanish anarchist political organizations and unions began and remained democratic throughout the war; (b) That a majority of the citizenry in areas controlled by the anarchists was sympathetic to the anarchist movement; (c) That workers directly controlled factories and businesses that they expropriated, rather than being subject to strict control by anarchist leaders; and (d) That the farm collectives in the anarchist-controlled regions were largely voluntary, and rarely exerted coercive pressure against small farmers who refused to join. In contrast, anarcho-capitalist critics such as James Donald normally maintain that: (a) The Spanish anarchist political organizations and unions, even if they were initially democratic, quickly transformed into dictatorial oligarchies with democratic trappings once the war started; (b) That the Spanish anarchists, even if they initially enjoyed popular support, quickly forfeited it with their abuse of power; (c) That in many or most cases, "worker" control meant dictatorial control by the anarchist elite; and (d) That the farm collectivizations in anarchist-controlled regions were usually coercively formed, totalitarian for their duration, and marked by a purely nominal right to remain outside the collective (since non-joining farmers were seriously penalized in a number of ways). For a reply to James Donald's piece, click here. 

For my own account of the controversy regarding the Spanish Anarchists, see The Anarcho-Statists of Spain: An Historical, Economic, and Philosophical Analysis of Spanish Anarchism. For a reply to my piece, click here. 

Israeli kibbutzim have also been admired as working examples of voluntary socialism. Kropotkin and Bakunin held up the mir, the traditional communal farming system in rural Russia, as suggestive of the organization and values which would be expressed in an anarchist society. Various experimental communities have also laid claim to socialist anarchist credentials. 

Anarcho-capitalists' favorite example, in contrast, is medieval Iceland. David Friedman has written extensively on the competitive supply of defense services and anarchistic character of a much-neglected period of Iceland's history. Left-anarchists have occasionally criticized Friedman's work on medieval Iceland, but overall this debate is much sketchier than the debate over the Spanish Civil War. See Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in practice?; for David Friedman's reply to an earlier draft of this piece , click here. 

A long stretch of medieval Irish history has also been claimed to have pronounced anarcho-capitalist features. Other anarcho-capitalists have argued that the American "Wild West" offers an excellent illustration of anarcho-capitalist institutions springing up only to be later suppressed and crowded out by government. Anarcho- capitalists also often note that while the United States has never been an anarchist society by any stretch of the imagination, that before the 20th-century the United States came closer to their pure laissez-faire ideals than any other society in history. America's colonial and revolutionary period especially interests them. Murray Rothbard in particular published a four-volume history of the colonial and revolutionary eras, finding delight in a brief period of Pennsylvania's history when the state government virtually dissolved itself due to lack of interest. (An unpublished fifth volume in the series defended the "weak" Articles of the Confederation against the strong, centralized state established by the U.S. Constitution.) 

One case that has inspired both sorts of anarchists is that of the free cities of medieval Europe. The first weak link in the chain of feudalism, these free cities became Europe's centers of economic development, trade, art, and culture. They provided a haven for runaway serfs, who could often legally gain their freedom if they avoided re-capture for a year and a day. And they offer many examples of how people can form mutual-aid associations for protection, insurance, and community. Of course, left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists take a somewhat different perspective on the free cities: the former emphasize the communitarian and egalitarian concerns of the free cities, while the latter point to the relatively unregulated nature of their markets and the wide range of services (often including defense, security, and legal services) which were provided privately or semi-privately. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid contains an extensive discussion of the free cities of medieval Europe; anarcho-capitalists have written less on the subject, but strongly praise the historical treatments in Henri Pirenne's Medieval Cities and Harold Berman's Law and Revolution. 

Разве анархизм не утопия?

18. Isn't anarchism utopian? 

Utopianism is perhaps the most popular criticism made of anarchism. In an atypically uncharitable passage in his European Socialism, socialist historian Carl Landauer states: 

There is certainly one truth in anarchistic beliefs: Every large organization contains an element of veiled or open force, and every kind of force is an evil, if we consider its effects on the human character. But is it not the lesser evil? Can we dispense with force? When this question is clearly put, the case for anarchism seems extremely weak. It is true, that the experiment of an entirely forceless society have never been made. But such evidence as we have does not indicate that ill intentions will cease to exist if repressive force disappears, and it is clear enough that one ill-intentioned person can upset a large part of society if there is no repressive force. The fact that some intelligent and highly idealistic men and women have believed and still believe in anarchism shows that there is a type of sectarianism which accepts a belief in spite of, or perhaps because of, its apparent absurdity.

As we have seen, however, virtually all anarcho-capitalists and many left-anarchists accept the use of force in some circumstances. Landauer's remark would be better directed at absolute pacifists rather than anarchists in general. 

Anarchists' supposed unwillingness to use force in any circumstance is only one reason why they have been widely perceived as utopian. Sometimes the utopian charge is trivial; if, for example, any radical change is labelled "utopian." If on the other hand "utopian" simply means that anarchism could work if and only if all people were virtuous, and thus in practice would lead to the imposition of new forms of oppression, then the question is more interesting. Interesting, because this is more or less the charge that different types of anarchists frequently bring against each other. 

To the left-anarchist, for example, anarcho-capitalism is based upon a truly fantastic picture of economics, in which free competition somehow leads to prosperity and freedom for all. To them, the anarcho-capitalists' vision of "economic harmonies" and the workings of the "invisible hand" are at best unlikely, and probably impossible. Hence, in a sense they accuse the anarcho-capitalists of utopianism. 

The anarcho-capitalists charge the left-anarchists similarly. For the latter imagine that somehow a communitarian society could exist without forcible repression of dissenting individualists; think that incentives for production would not be impaired by enforced equality; and confusedly equate local democracy with freedom. Moreover, they generally have no explanation for how crime would be prevented or what safeguards would prevent the rise of a new ruling elite. For the anarcho-capitalist, the left-anarchist is again hopelessly utopian. 

Разве анархисты не предполагают, что все люди добродетельны от рождения?

19. Don't anarchists assume that all people are innately virtuous?

This is a perfectly reasonable question, for it is indeed the case that some anarchists expect a remarkable change in human nature to follow (or precede?) the establishment of an anarchist society. This assumption partially explains the frequent lack of explanation of how an anarchist society would handle crime, dissenting individualists, and so on. 

The belief in innate human virtue is normally found only among left-anarchist thinkers, but of course it does not follow, nor is it true, that all left-anarchist thinkers believe in humanity's innate human virtue. 

Разве анархисты не террористы?

20. Aren't anarchists terrorists? 

Aren't statists terrorists? Well, some of the them are; in fact, the overwhelming majority of non-governmental groups who murder and destroy property for political aims believe that government ought to exist (and that they ought to run it). And just as the existence of such statist terrorists is a poor argument for anarchism, the existence of anarchist terrorists is a poor argument against anarchism. For any idea whatever, there will always be those who advocate advancing it by violence. 

It is however true that around the turn of the century, a certain segment of anarchists advocated what they called "propaganda by the deed." Several heads of state were assassinated by anarchists, along with businessmen, industrialists, stock-brokers, and so on. One of the most famous instances was when the young Alexander Berkman tried to murder the steel industrialist Henry Frick. During this era, the left-anarchists were divided as to the permissibility of terrorism; but of course many strongly opposed it. And individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker almost always saw terrorist activities as both counter-productive and immoral when innocents were injured (as they often were). 

The basic argument of the advocates of "propaganda by the deed" was that anarchist terrorism would provoke governments -- even avowedly liberal and democratic governments -- to resort to increasingly harsh measures to restore order. As governments' ruthlessness increased, their "true colors" would appear for all to see, leading to more immediate results than mere education and theorizing. As E.V. Zenker notes in his Anarchism: A Criticism and History of the Anarchist Theory, a number of Western governments were driven to adopt anti-terrorist laws as a result of anarchist terrorism. (Zenker goes on to note that Great Britain remained true to its liberal heritage by refusing to punish individuals merely for espousing anarchist ideas.) But as one might expect, contrary to the terrorists' hopes, it was the reputation of anarchism -- peaceful and violent alike -- which suffered rather than the reputation of the state. 

Undoubtedly the most famous modern terrorist in the tradition of "propaganda by the deed" is the so-called Unabomber, who explicitly labels himself an anarchist in his now-famous manifesto. In his manifesto, the Unabomber makes relatively little attempt to link himself to any particular figures in the anarchist tradition, but professes familiarity and general agreement with the anarchistic wing of the radical environmentalist movement. A large proportion of this wide-ranging manifesto criticizes environmentalists' cooperation with socialists, minority rights activists, and other broadly left-wing groups; the point of this criticism is not of course to propose an alliance with conservatives, but to reject alliance with people who fail to reject technology as such. The more positive portion of the manifesto argues that freedom and technology are inherently incompatible, and outlines a program for the destruction of both modern industry and the scientific knowledge necessary to sustain it. 

The large majority of anarchists -- especially in modern times -- fervently oppose the killing of innocents on purely moral grounds (just as most non-anarchists presumably do, though anarchists would often classify those killed in war as murder victims of the state). Nonviolence and pacifism now inspire far more anarchist thinkers than visions of random terror. Anarchists from many different perspectives have been inspired by the writings of the 16th-century Frenchman Etienne de la Boetie, whose quasi-anarchistic The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude spelled out a detailed theory of nonviolent revolution. La Boetie explained that since governments depend upon the widespread belief in their legitimacy in order to rule, despotism could be peacefully overthrown by refusing to cooperate with the state. Henry David Thoreau influenced many nonviolent protest movements with a similar theme in "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." As Thoreau put it: "If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose." The success of the nonviolent anti-communist revolutions lends new support to the tactical insight of la Boetie and Thoreau. 

Как можно было бы достичь анархического общества?

21. How might an anarchist society be achieved?

On one level, most modern anarchists agree fully that education and persuasion are the most effective way to move society towards their ultimate destination. There is the conviction that "ideas matter"; that the state exists because most people honestly and firmly believe that the state is just, necessary, and beneficial, despite a few drawbacks. Winston Churchill famously remarked that, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." The anarchist's goal is to disprove Churchill's claim: to show that contrary to popular belief, Western democracy is not only bad but inferior to a very different but realistic alternative. 

Aside from this, the similarity between anarchist approaches breaks down. In particular, what should the "transitional" phase look like? Anarcho-capitalists generally see every reduction in government power and activity as a step in the right direction. In consequence, they usually support any measure to deregulate, repeal laws, and cut taxation and spending (naturally with the caveat that the cuts do not go nearly far enough). Similarly, they can only hail the spread of the underground economy or "black market," tax evasion, and other acts of defiance against unjust laws. 

Каков список некоторых адресов анархистских страниц во Всемирной паутине?

Начну с того, что моя страница находится по адресу:

Архивы Брайана Каплана

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan

У меня хранится небольшой список адресов, поскольку эти сайты позволяют легко добраться до других подобных сайтов. 

Некоторые отправные точки для дискуссии по левому анархизму:

Анархистские архивы

http://www.miyazaki-mic.ac.jp/ faculty/dward/Anarchist_Archives/archivehome.html

Лучшая страница в своём роде, на мой взгляд.

Видные анархисты и левые либертарии

http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/libertarians.html

Веб-страница анархистов Портленда

http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~jason/

http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~jason/ 

http://www.duke.edu/~eagle/anarchy/ 

http://www.duke.edu/~eagle/anarchy/ 

http://web.cs.city.ac.uk/homes/louise/yearbk.html 

Каталог Spunk Press

http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Jack.Jansen/spunk/cat-us/Toplevel.html 

Критика либертарианства:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Burn 

http://burn.ucsd.edu/Welcome.html

Всё об анархизме

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/index.html

Некоторые отправные точки для дискуссии по анархо-капитализму:

Free-market.com

http://www.free-market.com

Страничка свободы Джеймса Дональда:

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/world.html

Институт Гуманитарных Исследований

http://mason.gmu.edu/~ihs

Домашняя страничка Нильса Буля

http://www.math.ku.dk/~buhl

Либертарианская веб-страница

http://lw3.ag.uiuc.edu/liberty/libweb.html

Международное Общество за Индивидуальную Свободу

http://www.creative.net/~star/

Либертарный Альянс

http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/

Домашняя страничка Дэвида Фридмана

http://www.best.com/~ddfr

Есть несколько других ЧаВо, которые имеются в Сети. Ни один из них полностью не удовлетворил меня; среди прочих недостатков они обычно или полностью игнорируют анархо-капитализм, или атакуют воображаемого противника, и таким образом вносят мало ясности в самые горячие сетевые дебаты. С другой стороны, в этих прочих ЧаВо зачастую есть намного больше исторической информации, чем у меня. Убедитесь лично.

http://www.ibw.com.ni/~dlabs/anarquismo/every.html

http://tigerden.com/~berios/libsoc.html

http://www.art.net/Poets/Jennifer/anarchy/archyfaq2.html

http://www.vnet.net/users/goodag/birdo/ana.html

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ctmunson/TEXT/sp000284.html

Там существуют ЧаВо, написанные Роджером Маккейном о либертарном социализме и левом анархизме заметно более высокого качества чем предыдущие пять. Архив находится по адресу:

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/LSfaq/faq_ToC.html

Новые, весьма подробные ЧаВо с левоанархической точки зрения недавно были опубликованы специально к 60-летней годовщине испанской революции. Они доступны по адресу:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931

Мои ЧаВо начинают обрастать замечаниями критиков, которые предпочитают писать полномасштабные ответы. Те, о которых я знаю:

Опровержение ЧаВо по анархизму Брайана Кэплана от Лэмонта Грэнквиста

Ответы на некоторые ошибки и искажения в ЧаВо по анархистской теории Брайана Каплана в версии 4.1.1

Единственное, что я замечу - что неправда, будто я игнорирую критику своих ЧаВо. Есть множество пунктов, которые я изменил или расширил вследствие полученной критики; и когда я не соглашаюсь с претензиями критиков, я часто прошу разрешения указать их возражения дословно в следующей редакции. Однако верно, что я только отвечаю на критику, полученную лично на ящик; нападки, просто опубликованные в группах новостей, вряд ли привлекут мое внимание.

Как мне известно, не существует страницы, которая содержала бы широкий обзор вроде этих ЧаВо. Однако, все эти источники в сочетании должны дать надлежащую картину широкого диапазона анархических точек зрения, наряду с большей информацией об истории и современности, которые я не хотел обсуждать здесь подробно. Просмотр этих сайтов может также дать разумную картину того, как левый анархизм и анархо-капитализм интеллектуально соотносятся с более широкими прогрессивными и либертарными движениями, соответственно.

Каковы основные анархистские сочинения?

What are some major anarchist writings? 

Особенно хорошо написанные и выражающие классические точки зрения различных анархистских теорий отмечены звёздочкой (*). Обширные обзоры анархизма отмечены октоторпом (#).

Михаил Бакунин. Бог и Государство

Mihail Bakunin. God and the State 

Михаил Бакунин. Государственность и Анархия

Mikhail Bakunin. Statism and Anarchy 

Александр Беркман "Азбука анархизма"

Alexander Berkman. The ABC of Anarchism 

Etienne de la Boetie. The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (also published as The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude) 

Burnett Bolloten. The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution 

Murray Bookchin. Post-Scarcity Anarchism 

Frank Brooks, ed. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908) 

Roy Childs. Liberty Against Power 

Ноам Хомский "Американская мощь и новые мандарины"

Noam Chomsky. American Power and the New Mandarins 

Noam Chomsky. The Chomsky Reader 

Tyler Cowen, ed. The Theory of Market Failure (also published as Public Goods and Market Failures) 

Douglas Davis and Charles Holt. Experimental Economics 

* Дэвид Фридман "Механика свободы"

* David Friedman. The Machinery of Freedom 

Эмма Голдман "Анархизм и другие эссе"

*# Даниэль Герен "Анархизм: От теории к практике"

*# Daniel Guerin. Anarchism: From Theory to Practice 

Ханс-Герман Хоппе "Теории социализма и капитализма"

Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism 

Anthony de Jasay. Social Contract, Free Ride 

Leonard Krimerman and Lewis Perry, eds. Patterns of Anarchy 

Пётр Кропоткин "Взаимопомощь как фактор эволюции"

* Карл Ландауэр "Европейский социализм: История идей и движений"

* Carl Landauer. European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements 

Вэнди МакЭлрой. Свобода, Феминизм и Государство

Wendy McElroy. Freedom, Feminism, and the State 

# Peter Marshall. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism 

Густав де Молинари "Производство безопасности"

Альберт Джей Нок "Наш враг - государство"

Albert Jay Nock. Our Enemy the State 

Роберт Нозик "Анархия, государство и утопия"

Франц Оппенгеймер "Государство"

Franz Oppenheimer. The State 

David Osterfeld. Freedom, Society, and the State : An Investigation into the Possibility of Society without Government 

Пьер-Жозеф Прудон "Что такое собственность?"

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. What is Property? 

Мюррей Ротбард  "Этика свободы"

Мюррей Ротбард "К Новой Свободе"

Мюррей Ротбард "Власть и Рынок"

Murray Rothbard. Power and Market 

David Schmidtz. The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument 

Lysander Spooner. The Lysander Spooner Reader 

Макс Штирнер "Единственный и Его собственность"

Max Stirner. The Ego and Its Own 

Morris and Linda Tannehill. The Market for Liberty 

Henry David Thoreau. The Portable Thoreau 

Бенджамен Таккер "Вместо книги, написано человеком слишком занятым, чтобы написать книгу"

Benjamin Tucker. Instead of a Book, by a Man Too Busy to Write One 

Gordon Tullock, ed. Further Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy 

# Джордж Вудкок "Анархизм: история либертарных идей и движений"

# George Woodcock. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements 

# E.V. Zenker. Anarchism: A Criticism and History of the Anarchist Theory

For comments, suggestions, corrections, etc., write bcaplan@gmu.edu. Thanks to Fabio Rojas, James Donald, David Friedman, Robert Vienneau, Ken Steube, Ben Haller, Vincent Cook, Bill Woolsey, Conal Smith, Jim Kalb, Chris Faatz, J. Shamlin, Keith Lynch, Rose Lucas, Bruce Baechler, Jim Cook, Jack Jansen, Tom Wetzel, Steve Koval, Brent Jass, Tracy Harms, Ian Goddard, and I.M. McKay for helpful advice or other assistance. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://translated.by/you/anarchist-theory-faq-or-instead-of-a-faq-by-a-man-too-busy-to-write-one-version-5-2/into-ru/trans/
Original (English): Anarchist Theory FAQ  or  Instead of a FAQ, by a Man Too Busy to Write One. Version 5.2 (http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm)
Translation: © анархист Иванов, Ivan Burbakov, jamesgorinich, Пекс Луната, sindikat.

translated.by crowd