Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement
by Jeff Draughn.  
Transcriber's note (TN): italics are represented by a ! before the word.
        
Introduction
        
        The following essay has been written to address an increasingly 
common phenomenon which has emerged in recent years. With the 
gradual rise of the new Libertarian Party in the public eye, there is a 
curious tendency to equate the Libertarians to anarchists, or to 
describe their agenda as being anarchistic in some fashion. As the 
Libertarians' profile widens, it is likely that this comparison will also 
increase, !but !should !it? Is this !really an appropriate comparison?
        No. This essay will try to present documentation comparing the 
"classical" anarchists, the founders of the movement who operated in 
Nineteenth Century Europe, and their advocates today, with the 
founder of the Libertarian philosophy. Upon careful examination, 
their differences should seem obvious.
        Prior to beginning this effort, a few points should be addressed. 
First, during the course of this paper, numerous passages will be 
included to illustrate the philosophies of various individuals, in their 
own words. The final section, in particular, will include several 
sizable passages from the works of Michael Bakunin, the father of 
anarchist political philosophy. Due to his eloquent, flamboyant style, 
his excerpts will be rather lengthy, but, where appropriate, they have 
been reproduced with very minimal doctoring. In his case, it is the 
author's opinion that much of Bakunin's rhetorical gifts would be lost 
should these samples be "cut up" excessively. Fortunately, the 
passages from the works of Ayn Rand are not terribly lengthy, 
considering that she seemed to have a much greater gift for 
succinctness then Bakunin.
        Please note, as well, that most of the passages do not use gender 
inclusive language. The tradition, in 1850 as well as 1970, was to use 
the word "man" as a metaphor for all members of humanity. Rather 
than including a (sic) at every transgression, the author asks that the 
reader pardon the use of the metaphor where it appears.
        It is also only fair to state from the beginning the bias of the 
author. While the purpose of the essay is simply to illuminate the 
differences between these two groups, the author is far and away more 
sympathetic to the anarchists then to the Libertarians, and wherever 
this may be apparent in the presentation, it is not meant to be 
concealed. The chief objective, nonetheless, is expositional, not 
polemical. The anarchists would not wish to be mistaken for 
Libertarians, and the Libertarians would not wish to be mistaken for 
anarchists. The goal is to help eliminate such mistakes.
        


        I. Mapping the Political Landscape

        The political philosophy of anarchism is a peculiar beast, 
historically misunderstood and often misrepresented, either 
consciously or inadvertently. To best understand it, one must divine 
some workable method of comparing it to other political philosophies, 
but unfortunately the tradition system, the !linear !graph, seems 
conspicuously inadequate.  The linear graph, or the so-called 
"political spectrum," allegedly displays the entirety of political 
options along a single line, from left to right, stretching out from a 
central point representing "moderate." From there it leads to 
"liberalism" on the left, until it reaches to "radical liberalism" and 
"communism," which is the extreme left "fringe." To the right it 
leads to "conservatism," and finally to a reactionary conservatism" 
and "fascism," which is the extreme right "fringe." (See Fig. 1).


Fig.1 - Traditional image of political spectrum [Transcriber's note: 
linear representation]

Communism  -  Liberalism  -  Moderate  - Conservative  - Fascism
<<-------------------------------------------------------------->>


        This image offers little in the way of understanding the 
differences between the "left" and the "right." Indeed, if we compare 
the Nazi government of 1930's Germany, which is widely considered 
a good case study in fascism, and compare it with the Bolshevik 
government of the Soviet Union, widely regarded as a good case 
study in communism, the obvious totalitarian nature of both political 
systems may lead us to believe that the two are virtually the same 
system. And if fascism and communism are nearly identical, why are 
they so "extremely" separate on the spectrum? Are they actually the 
same ideology in practice, distinguishable only by the rhetoric 
employed by the resident "Ministry of Truth?" That would suggest 
that this linear graph is actually a circle, and that fascism and 
communism are actually on roughly the same point on the spectrum.  
(Fig.2 - common modification of traditional image.) [Transcriber's 
Note: Author's Fig. 2 shows the endpoints of Fig. 1 closing into a 
circle, making a circular representation, whereby Communism and 
Fascism coincide.]  Perhaps fascism and communism are just 
buzzwords for a single system, totalitarianism. That would seem 
consistent in that liberalism and conservatism are at opposite poles, 
but is the polar opposite of totalitarianism something labeled 
"moderate?" What is the shared ideology of moderates? If 
totalitarianism endorses a society almost totally controlled by a strong 
central government, shouldn't its opposite philosophy endorse a 
society almost completely !absent of strong central government? 
Surely moderates (in our society at least) do not endorse a society 
without government, which is essentially an !anarchist position. Then 
where does anarchism fit on this spectrum? And where does 
"libertarianism," as endorsed by the newly formed (U.S.) Libertarian 
Party, fit on this spectrum?
        To answer these questions we must, in short, reject the tradition 
linear" image, and even the "circular" image of the political spectrum, 
and examine a new image. For the purposes of this essay, a two-
dimensional alternative, borrowed from the good people of !Utne 
!Reader, will be used.  (endnote l)  This alternative spectrum takes as 
its objective "foundation," its standard, its "yardstick" with which to 
gauge various ideologies, two primary questions: the question of 
property ownership, and the question of State control.  The graph is 
composed of two axes, one (left- right) representing the variations of 
systems of property ownership, the other (top-bottom) representing 
the variations of State control over society. (See Fig. 3 - the 
Property/State" Axis) 


                                           Decentralism
S                           ("Small" or "No Government")
t                                                      
a             Collectivism                                             Privitism
t     (Community Ownership)                        (Individual Ownership)
e
                                             Centralism
                                       ("Big Government")

         P r o p e r t y--->


The "property" axis varies from total collectivization of property 
(community control of land and the "means of production") to total 
privatization of property (individual ownership of land and the 
"means of production"). The "State" axis varies from total control or 
eminence of State government (totalitarianism, or !centrism ) to total 
absence or extremely minimal State government (decentralism ). Once 
these two linear spectrums are combined into a two- dimensional 
graph, the task of differentiating various political ideologies (at least 
the so-called "extreme" ones) becomes much easier.
        It also allows us to assign specific meanings to specific terms, 
terms whose traditional definitions have been all but buried in decades 
after decades of contradictory usage. It can't be denied that many 
political terms ("liberal" and "conservative," for example) simply do 
not have the same strict denotations today that they may have had a 
century or two ago. Their meanings have changed, evolved, and, in 
the content of historical analysis, it becomes necessary to clarify their 
specific meanings if we insist upon using them. Fortunately, 
clarifying the terms "liberalism" and "conservatism" is unnecessary to 
this particular essay, but others are indeed necessary. For the course 
of this paper, we will assign certain descriptors to designate poles of 
the "landscape" graph. For instance, the term "socialistic" will be 
used to describe individuals or doctrines advocating collectivism, or 
the abolition of private property. (See Fig. 4 - Descriptive Labels) 

                                         "Libertarian"
S                           ("Small" or "No Government")
t                                                      
a             "Socialistic"                                              "Capitalistic"
t     (Community Ownership)                        (Individual Ownership)
e
                                          "Authoritarian"
                                       ("Big Government")

         P r o p e r t y--->


"Capitalistic" will be used to describe those who defend the right to 
private property. "Authoritarian" will describe those who advocate a 
strong State, a powerful central government. And "libertarian" will 
describe advocates of minimal or nonexistent government power. 
Certainly these denotations are not necessarily consistent with all their 
historical uses, but such consistency is an impossibility, and these 
definitions are not totally divorced from contemporary usage, as shall 
be seen.
        With our terms now defined, certain ideologies may be pin-
pointed on the graph. In particular, the ideologies of Communism, 
Fascism, Libertarianism, and Anarchism can be designated. These 
four political philosophies are particularly important (on this graph at 
least) because they represent the "corners." By asking how these 
ideologies stand on the issues of property and centralism, we can 
place them on the graph. (See Fig. 5 - The graphic locations of the 
four ideologies)

        ANARCHISM             "Libertarian"       LIBERTARIANISM
S                             ("Small" or "No Government")
t                                                      
a             "Socialistic"                                          "Capitalistic"
t     (Community Ownership)                       (Individual Ownership)
e  
                                                 "Authoritarian"
       COMMUNISM           ("Big Government")           FASCISM

         P r o p e r t y--->

For example, Communism, as described by Karl Marx, endorses the 
usurpation of all property and factories by a strong State, or 
"collectivism plus centralism." It covers the bottom left corner. 
Fascism, as practiced by Hitler (in spite of the "socialism" in the 
NAZI acronym), Mussolini, and most modern "banana republics," 
has a flourishing privately owned industrial complex operating in 
collusion with a strong autocratic military regime. Although these 
industries are often subordinate to the will of the State, typically 
making weapons and such to keep the mother armies supplied, these 
corporations are well paid for the goods they produce, and the 
industries themselves are owned by individuals, not the government. 
(endnote 2)  In other words, fascism is "capitalism plus centralism."  
Anarchism endorses a collective, community ownership of property 
and the means of production, and its advocates have often called 
themselves "libertarian communists" or "stateless socialists," usually 
to try to differentiate themselves from the Marxists. Clearly, 
"collectivism plus decentralism."
        Finally, this essay will try to clarify that the newly formed 
Libertarian Party endorses a position of "privatism plus 
decentralism," the forth and last corner of the graph. Not very much 
is known about this renegade "third party," but enough is known 
about them and one of their ideological role models, Ayn Rand, to 
discern that they believe in the absolute sanctity of private property, 
the moral soundness of capitalism, and the minimalization of the 
State.
        Today, there is a tendency to associate the Libertarians with 
anarchism. This is not terribly surprising. The anarchists of the 
Nineteenth Century were using the term "libertarian" to describe 
themselves for a long time, and modern anarchists, such as Murray 
Bookchin, continue to use the term. (endnote 3)  And, in a political 
sense, the two seem complimentary. For instance, they both are 
staunch advocates of civil rights. For the most part, both groups 
oppose government censorship of rap music, pornographic magazines 
and Ray Bradbury novels. They both oppose prohibition of the use or 
sale of marijuana. They both oppose government regulations of 
firearms. Neither believes the State should have the authority to 
decide which god should be prayed to in schools, or which sexual 
positions are and are not morally permissible. However, under 
scrutiny, the distinction between anarchists and Libertarians in 
regards to the property question is substantial, and in this light these 
two groups are clearly incompatible. To mistake them for one other is 
obfuscatory, and does neither of them any service. 
        


II. Toward a Definition of Anarchism

        To begin this comparison, we are required to come to some 
consensus as to the actual meaning of the term "anarchism," if for no 
other reason to determine if its placement on the above "landscape" 
graph is indeed accurate. A good starting point is the new 
HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy which, interestingly enough, 
has two definitions, a "positive connotation" and a "negative 
connotation:"

        "Anarchism is the social ideology that refuses to accept an 
authoritarian ruling government It holds that individuals should 
organize themselves in any way they wish in order to fulfill their 
needs and ideals In this sense anarchism is not to be identified with 
nihilism but can be seen to have similarities with political 
libertarianism . . .
        "Anarchism is the belief that denies any respect for law and 
order and actively engages in the promotion of chaos through the 
destruction of society. It advocates the use of individual terrorism as a 
means toward advancing the cause of social and political 
disorganization."

        This is a fairly balanced description, although the "positive" 
definition-is thin at best. Please note that anarchism is compared to 
"political libertarianism." It is unfortunate that this dictionary did not 
include a political definition for "libertarianism." The "negative" 
definition of anarchism essentially captures the mythical paranoid 
connotation that has been used for over a hundred years. If one bears 
the word used today, this will almost certainly be its intended 
meaning.
        We can learn almost as much about the word's meaning by 
looking at its origins: "from Greek, prefix !a, not, the want of, the 
absence of, the lack of, + !archos, a ruler, director, chief, person in 
charge, commander. The Greek words !anarchos, !anarchia meant 
having no government--being without a government." (endnote 4).  
The strict, original meaning of anarchism was not "no government" 
!per !se. Rather, it was "no leader, no ruler."  The denotation 
suggests a condition of non-hierarchy, and this condition of "no one 
in charge" was considered synonymous with "lack of government."  
This is significant, in that many anarchists, past and present, have 
insisted that anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy 
rather than anti-government. Throughout the Nineteenth Century, as 
anarchist philosophy was being carved by such notables as Mikhail 
Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, the focus of their philosophy tended to 
have three primary targets: 1) the State, 2) the bourgeois, and 3) the 
Church. Among them there was a solid consensus that these three 
collective institutions should be abolished in whole, and these were 
the topics of most of their writings. However, the overarching theory 
was to forge a society of "liberty, fraternity, equality" for all men and 
women. Although the term was probably never used, theirs was a 
philosophy against hierarchy against any inequality of power or 
privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when he said, 
"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-
man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." (endnote 5). 
While it has always been a latent part of the "revolutionary project," 
only recently has this broader concept of anti-hierarchy arisen for 
more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root of this is plainly visible 
in the Greek roots of the word "anarchy."
        Every anarchist who wrote about the theory had to offer their 
definition, as it was so poorly understood. One of the clearest was 
offered by Kropotkin in his pamphlet !Anarchist !Communism, !Its 
!Basis !and !Principles, in which he defines anarchism as "the no-
government system of socialism....
        
        "In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the 
private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; 
that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for 
production must, and will, become the common property of society, 
and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And...they 
maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a 
condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to 
minimum....(and) that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of 
the functions of government to nil--that is, to a society without 
government, to an-archy." (endnote 6)
        
        What is interesting about this exposition is that Kropotkin first 
explains the socialist, collectivist tenets of anarchism, and then 
explains the political tenets. In spite of the obvious image of 
anarchism being !primarily an anti-government philosophy, Kropotkin 
elaborates on the anti-State facets only after establishing the 
relationship of anarchism to socialism.
        This is echoed throughout the literature. Bakunin repeated refers 
to himself as a socialist, but did renounce "Communism:" "I am not a 
Communist because Communism unites all the forces of society in the 
state and becomes absorbed in it; because it inevitably leads to 
concentration of all property in the hands of the state, while I seek the 
abolition of the state." (endnote 7) Bakunin had obviously seen fit to 
let the Marxists have the word "communist," as long as he had the 
word "anarchist." At this point, Bakunin saw "communism" as 
synonymous with "state socialism" and "anarchism" as synonymous 
with "stateless socialism." These are the terms accepted in this essay. 
Yet, less than fifty years later, Kropotkin was attempting to "take 
back" the term "communist" as his own.
        A Twentieth Century anarchist, Rudolf Rocker, accepted the 
socialist definition of the philosophy. In defining anarchism he writes, 
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political 
and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the 
development of a free humanity." Rocker sees this realization only in 
actualizing the Liberalist and Socialist traditions of the French 
Revolution. Convinced that the gallant but "pre-eminently political" 
concepts of Liberalism and Democracy were "shipwrecked on the 
realities of the capitalist economic form," Rocker asserts . . .

        "In common with founders of Socialism, Anarchist demand the 
abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of 
the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be 
available to all without distinction. . . .(T)he Anarchists represent the 
viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a 
war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic 
exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political ant social 
oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of 
man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other." 
(endnote 8)

        A more contemporary scholar, Noam Chomsky, head of the 
Linguistics Department at MIT, has described himself as a "derivative 
fellow traveler" of anarchist thought, and has endorsed the socialist 
definition, stating, "I would prefer to think of it as the libertarian left, 
and. . . can be conceived as a kind of voluntary socialism. . . in the 
tradition of Bakunin and Kropotkin and others." (endnote 9)  Note 
that Chomsky uses the "libertarian" label to differentiate the 
anarchists from "non- libertarian" Marxists, who advocate an 
"involuntary socialism."
        While even Chomsky is quick to admit that anarchist thought 
covers "quite a range of ideas," it is apparent that a strong socialist 
motif runs through much of the anarchist literature, including the 
literature of most of its lauded pioneers. With this established, a 
glance at the Libertarian Party agenda is required for us to make a 
genuine comparison.
        


III. Modern Libertarianism and Ayn Rand

        Information on the Libertarian Party is, unfortunately, rather 
scarce. While allegedly the "third-largest and fastest-growing" 
political party in the United States, their material is still not readily 
accessible in the Tallahassee, FL area, and their toll-free telephone 
number was constantly busy prior to the 1992 Presidential elections. 
However, a short, one-page pamphlet entitled "Understanding the 
Libertarian Philosophy" was fortunately available. (A copy is 
enclosed with this essay) [TN: another day]. This pamphlet, written 
by Joseph E. Knight, Libertarian Party Field Organizer, is a succinct 
attempt at clarifying the core ideology, if not the specific 
programmatic platform, of the Party. Of course, not much can be said 
in one page, no matter how small the type. However, there are certain 
tell-tale "fingerprints" in Mr. Knight's brief account, which may tie it 
to a larger and more accessible body of work, with which we may fill 
in some conceptual gaps.
        It has been rumored, though no written proof is available to the 
author of this essay, that the Libertarian Party is heavily influenced by 
the Objectivist movement, of which Ayn Rand has emerged as the 
chief spokesperson. Ayn Rand died in 1982, but she left behind a 
substantial body of literature, both fictional and expositional, most of 
which can be sampled at any local bookstore or library. If the 
Libertarians really are influenced by Rand's work, then an 
understanding of Rand's objectivism would serve well to clarify the 
Libertarian "world view." But is there a connection?
        The theme of Knight's pamphlet is primarily the "proper role of 
government in a free society." An explication of the pamphlet is 
unnecessary, as the pamphlet is included with this essay and should be 
examined by the reader [TN: Write: The Libertarian Party, 1528 
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20003, or call (202) 543-1988 
or (800) 682-1776]. What follows is a comparison of certain 
particularly important passages of the pamphlet and certain pertinent 
statements from the writings of Ayn Rand:

        "Government is the use of force. To govern means to control. 
The use of force is implicit in the definition of control.... [Therefore,] 
the question becomes, "What is the proper use of force in a free 
society?" 
        "[A] government holds a legal monopoly on the we of physical 
force... The nature of governmental action is: coercive action." 
(endnote 10)
        
        Note the similarity of these two definitions. The latter was taken 
from a transcript of a lecture given by Rand in 1961, and later 
published as an essay entitled "America's Persecuted Minority: Big 
Business." Consider another example:
        
        "Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation 
of force. . . . Opposition to the INITIATION of force (the NON-
COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of libertarian philosophy."
        "The basic Principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may 
INITIATE "he use of physical force against others." (endnote 11)
        
        Again, please note the striking similarity of language. Samples 
are bountiful:
        
        " freedom is the absense of the initiation of force. "
        "Freedom. . . has only one meaning: the absence of physical 
coercion." (endnote 12)
        
        "The proper role of government (force) in a free society then, is 
to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force."
        "The only proper purpose of government is to protect man 's 
rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper 
government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-
defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start 
the use of force. " (endnote 13)
        
        "In a free society, you have property rights.... In a free society, 
you have personal rights.... Property rights and personal rights are 
really the same. Personal rights are based on property rights because 
you own your life, your body, and your mind."
        "The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to 
property is their only implementation. without property rights, no 
other rights are possible." (endnote 14)
        
        All the uncited passages above are taken from Mr. Knight's 
pamphlet. All of the cited passages are taken from various essays 
authored by Ayn Rand. When compared, these paired excerpts read 
like paraphrases of each other. Note the similar language, the 
repetition of key phrases ("initiation of force," "coercion"), and 
particularly the shared emphasis on !property !rights.  This list could 
continue, but the point is made. Almost all of the concepts expressed 
in this pamphlet were originally expressed, albeit in fragments, by 
Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, between twenty to thirty years 
ago. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that, if the "Libertarian 
Philosophy" as defined by the Party Field Organizer, is borrowed 
almost verbatim from the writings of Ayn Rand, then the Libertarian 
Party probably shares other ideas with Rand on topics not elaborated 
on in this specific pamphlet. Thus, by comparing Rand's ideas to the 
ideas of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century anarchists, we may be 
able to derive a semi-accurate assessment of the differences between 
the modern Libertarians and the anarchists.
        Please note. The comparison of Knight to Rand was not an 
effort to criticize the Libertarians by suggesting their ideas aren't 
"original," or that they're "expropriating" Rand's concepts 
improperly, or even that they may be concealing the relationship of 
their platform to Objectivism. On the contrary, it is unknown to the 
author, due to factors previously mentioned, whether the Libertarians 
conceal or proudly acknowledge this relationship. The sole purpose of 
the comparison was to establish the mere existence of this 
relationship, as no other sources were available.

        

IV. Between Ayn Rand and Anarchism

        In placing the Objectivist/Libertarians on the "landscape" graph, 
we must find their answer to the two premier questions: What about 
property, and what about the State? The answer, for the most part, 
has already been given. In economic terms, Rand has never been 
subtle in her beliefs; they are obvious at a glance. Among her 
publications are such titles as !Capitalism: !The !Unknown !Ideal, and 
!The !Virtue !of !Selfishness. Many of these texts are compilations of 
essays whose titles include: "Notes on the History of American Free 
Enterprise," "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus," and the above 
mentioned "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business." (endnote 
15)  She has described herself as a "!radical !for !capitalism," and 
describes her Objectivist movement as trying to supply "that 
philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it 
was doomed to perish. . ." (endnote 16)  Rand has elaborated at 
length on capitalist theory:
        
        "[TN:italics until word 'owned'] Capitalism is a social system 
based on the recognition of individual rights, including property 
rights, in which all property is privately owned...The !moral 
justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system 
consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival 
!qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice.'' (endnote 17)
         While the Libertarian pamphlet never mentions the word 
"capitalism" per se, their avowed "commitment to free enterprise" and 
the equation of personal rights with property rights is perfectly in 
sync with Rand's theories, and strongly connote an advocacy of 
capitalism.
        With the "property question" clearly answered, what about the 
State? "When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, 
unregulated laissez-faire capitalism--with a separation of state and 
economics. " (endnote 18)  The single legitimate role of tbe State, 
then, is to protect citizens from the "initiators of force," either by 
"defensive" or "retaliatory force."  Both Rand and Knight 
acknowledge a "proper role" of the State, but give it only one 
function: Coercive force, controlled by an "objective" code of law, 
defending citizens and property from any transgressors.Thus, on these 
terms, Objectivism/Libertarianism would appear to fit the definition 
of "privatism plus decentralism," or "libertarian capitalism," as 
delineated by the top-right corner of the "landscape" graph.
         On this basis, the differences between anarchism and 
Objectivism seem rather obvious: While both groups endorse a society 
with minimal State power (although both Rand and Knight admit the 
State has a "proper role," albeit limited, in contrast to the anarchist's 
desire for !complete elimination of the State), in an economic sense 
they are diametrical opposites. Rand sees capitalism as being theonly 
!just system for society, while the anarchists (or, at least, the anarcho-
communists) see capitalism as enslavement. The anarchists endorse a 
system of socialism sans State, while Rand sees "socialism" as being 
institutionalized theft and tyranny.
         These skewed visions can be partially attributed to a confusion 
over definitions, that age-old problem which we are even now 
struggling to remedy. For instance, Rand doesn't use the same general 
definition of socialism as theNineteenth Century anarchists like 
Bakunin or Kropotkin.  Indeed, she takes theBolshevik and Nazi 
"socialist" systems at face value, fully accepting their terms,defined 
by the realities of their policies.  The result is her equation of 
"socialism, "communism," and "fascism" as all being identical in 
essence, all three of which she encompasses under a single new term, 
"statism."  "Government control of a country's economy. . . rests on 
the basic principle of !statism, the principle that man's life belongs to 
the state." (endnote 19)  Rand's term, "statism," is synonymous with 
the general descriptor, "authoritarian" or "centralist," which we use 
with the "landscape" graph. Rand, however, describes socialism in a 
!strictly authoritarian sense.  "A statist system--whether of a 
communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or 'welfare' type--is based on the . 
. . government's unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute 
force." (endnote 20)  She did admit that fascism differed from 
socialism in that, under a fascist system, "citizens retain the 
responsibilities of owning property," while under socialism they do 
not. However, she thought this difference was insignificant because, 
in spite of private ownership, "the government holds total power over 
its use and disposal." (endnote 21)  However, she apparently had no 
concept of a non-statist socialism.
        Which is not to say she was an anarchist, or that she was totally 
ignorant of anarchism. She once wrote that, "Anarchy, as a political 
concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an 
organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who 
came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang 
warfare." (endnote 22)  Still, while she addresses "anarchy," she does 
not repudiate it as a system of stateless socialism, only as a state of 
lawlessness and "gang warfare," a society of land-owning individuals 
without the "policeman" that is government, a scene reminiscent of 
present-day Somalia [TN:this essay pre-dates the U.S. Invasion of 
Somalia]. She never indulges in a systematic critique of anarchist 
thought. This isn't too surprising, since anarchism, by its nature, has 
been an historically repressed movement. While the ideology of "State 
socialism" received pronounced attention and credibility in some 
scholarly circles after the Bolshevik Revolution put a large geographic 
fraction of the globe under its doctrine, anarchism has never had such 
a massive successful project to put it in the intellectual "limelight." 
Therefore, as its proponents are buried in the "dustbin of history," its 
primary tenets are increasingly forgotten and/or misunderstood.  It is 
therefore, expected that Rand would see socialism strictly in the terms 
of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, who "won," at least temporarily. 
Consider, too, that Rand was born to a wealthy family in St. 
Petersburg in 1905, and she was forced to flee to the Crimea with her 
family at the age of twelve. It is not unreasonable to suspect that she 
had an axe to grind with the Russian Communists, who "stole" her 
family's land and possessions. Nonetheless, she denounced absolute 
statelessness, and she denounced, invariably, any restriction to 
individual ownership of land. It would be foolish to hypothesize that 
the combination of these two tenets would have had any appeal to her. 
It likely would have been double anathema.
        It is interesting that she also condemned "libertarians," or at 
least some group to whom she attributed that label. In 1971, she 
wrote
        
        "For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times 
before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. 
More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no 
connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-
called "hippies of the right," who attempt to snare the younger of my 
readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy 
ant advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination 
confesses his inability to understand either." (endnote 23)
        
        One of her colleagues, Harry Binswanger, elaborated on this in 
1981,
        
        "[T]he 'libertarians' are tying capitalism to the whim-
worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with 
[this] group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future." 
(endnote 23)
        
        Are the "libertarians" of 1971 and 1981, whom Rand and 
Binswanger so viscerally condemn, the same Libertarians who 
produced the pamphlet explaining the "libertarian philosophy," 
utilizing so many of Rand's ideas? Was Andre Marrou a "hippy of the 
right," advocating a mix of capitalism and anarchy? What would Ayn 
Rand think of the '92 Libertarian Party?
        Knight's pamphlet explicitly mimics Rand's repeated assertions 
of the need of some government, so the Libertarians don't sound like 
"anarchists" of any brand. The line seems pretty clearly drawn. Still, 
regardless of what Rand would think of a political party trying to get 
into office to help implement some of her ideals, the fact remains that 
the Libertarians are obviously influenced by her work, and so she is a 
convenient lens with which to examine them. 
        


V. Society, Individualism, and Inheritance
        
        To better understand the differences between the anarchists and 
the Objectivists/Libertarians, it is necessary to dig deeper than simply 
their "soundbites" on the proper role of the State and their bandying 
of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism." While our "landscape" 
graph can accurately contrast different ideologies on the basis of these 
two important issues, it cannot help us understand the !philosophical 
foundation of these political and economic positions. That is a much 
more complicated process, and an adequate appraisal of the 
philosophies of anarchism and Objectivism cannot be made in merely 
a few typed pages. But it may be possible to highlight certain 
particulars that most clearly contrast each other, thereby granting us a 
glimpse of the root differences between these two schools of thought.
        The most glaring example of this is the concepts of 
individualism and society. Individualism is the keystone of Objectivist 
philosophy, and it pervades all other conclusions. "[E]very man . . . 
must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor 
sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-
interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his 
life." (endnote 25)  Rand's image of humanity is rooted in the 
"classical liberal" view, in the tradition of John Locke, which sees all 
people as absolute individual entities, whose only effect on one 
another is comparable to "billiard balls" randomly colliding and 
altering the otherwise linear course of their independent lives. 
Attempting to coexist among each other, people are forced, by 
overcrowding or whatever, to enter into a Rousseau-esque "social 
contract," a State, which guarantees security to all its citizens at the 
price of a "little" sacrificed freedom. The goal of individuals now is 
to reap the fruits of their labor, with their rightfully purchased land, 
and try to keep the State's tax of liberty" to an unobtrusive minimum. 
To Ayn Rand, there are no rights but individual rights, and "a group . 
. . has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." 
(endnote 26)
         Bakunin addressed these issues a century earlier, dismissing 
Rousseau's "social contract" as a "terrible nonsense," "a pernicious 
fiction." He defined humanity more broadly. "Man is not only the 
most individual being on earth, but also the most social." (endnote 
27)  Neither of these qualities can be ignored or dismissed. Bakunin 
described every human being as being the product of an environment, 
both natural and social, and as such, unable to escape the social 
element of their existence.  "Man does not choose society; on the 
contrary, he is the product of the latter." (endnote 28)  Through 
education, the values of a society or community are transferred to the 
next generation, thus all original ideas and concepts are produced on 
the foundation of what society has transmitted to its members.
        Here we see the starkest contrast between Objectivism and 
anarchism. Rand denies the value of society:

        "Mankind is not an entity, an organism, or a coral bush. The 
entity involved in production and trade is !man. It is with the study of 
man--not of the loose aggregate known as 'community'--that any 
science of the humanities has to begin....
        "A great deal may be learned about society by studying man: but 
this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by 
studying society- -by studying the inter-relationships of entities one 
has never identified or defined." (endnote 27)

[TN: endnotes 28-29 missing, suggesting author's deletion of some 
material]
        
        Rand's repudiation of the importance of society is echoed 
repeatedly:
        
        "Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; 
living in a human society is his proper way of life--but only on certain 
conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is 
a contractual animal." (endnote 30)
        
        In Rand's paradigm, "society" is merely a bundle of individuals 
who interact with one another when convenience requires it. 
Cooperation takes place on the basis of strict mutual self-interest, and 
typically on a "contractual" basis, such as employment. "Culture" is 
merely the sum total of ideas among a mass of individuals whose 
general acceptance is dominant over other "dissident" ideas.  These 
definitions are dry and stoic only because the truly important !unit of 
human society is the isolate human being, whose "creative faculty 
cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed." (endnote 31)
        Bakunin offers an elaborate renunciation of this image:
        
        "[E]verything that lives, does so under the categorical condition 
of decisively interfering in the life of someone else....
        The worse it is for those who are so ignorant of the natural and 
social law of human solidarity that they deem possible or even 
desirable the absolute independence of individuals in regard to one 
another. To will it is to will the disappearance of society.... All men, 
even the most intelligent and strongest are at every instant of their 
lives the producers and the product. Freedom itself, the freedom of 
every man, is the ever-renewed effect of the great mass of physical. 
intellectual, and moral influonces to which this man is subjected by 
the people surrounding him and the environment in which he was 
born and in which he passed his whole life.
        To wish to escape this influence in the name of some . . . self-
sufficient and absolutely egoistical freedom. is to aim toward non-
being.
        To do away with this reciprocal influence is tantamount to 
death. And in demanding the freedom of the masses we do not intend 
to do away with natural influences to which man is subjected by 
individuals and groups. All we want is to do away with is factitious. 
legitimized influences. to do away with the !priviledges in exerting 
influence." (endnote 32)
        
        What does Bakunin mean by "privileges of influence?" He 
means, in general, !hierarchies !of !power, and in specific, the 
political leaders who control the State, the ministers who control the 
Church, and of course, the capitalists who own and thereby control all 
capital, land, and the means of production. The premier issue that 
Bakunin addresses in his work, which Rand explicitly denies in hers, 
is that of !economic !exploitation. Rand does not believe exploitation 
is possible in "free trade" capitalism, so long as there is no !physical 
!force involved in the process. She is explicit:
        
        "!Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from 
government coercion. It does !not mean freedom from the landlord, or 
freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature 
which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means 
freedom from the coercive power of the state--and nothing else!" 
(endnote 33)
        
         Note the juxtaposition of "landlord," "employer," and the 
"laws of nature," the implication being that !all !three are an 
inevitability. And again, please note the sole emphasis on !active 
physical force. "What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle 
that differentiates freedom from slavery?  It is the principle of 
voluntary action !versus physical coercion or compulsion." (endnote 
34)  Rand's assumption is that, so long as there are no chains around 
one's ankles and no state requiring labor by threat of punishment, 
then labor is optional and workers are free.

         "A right cannot be violated except by physical force.  One man 
cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him,  Whenever a man 
is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, !voluntary 
consent-- his right has been violated." (endnote 35)

         To the anarchists, this is preposterous.  Once a State has been 
established, and most of the country's capital privatized, the threat of 
physical force is no longer necessary to coerce workers into accepting 
jobs, even with low pay and poor conditions.  To use Rand's tern, 
"initial force" has !already !taken !place, by those who now have 
capital against those who do not.  Bakunin described the conditions 
which make "voluntary" labor and illusion:

         "Juridically they are equal; but economically the worker is the 
serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person ant his 
liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf 
because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his 
head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions 
imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, 
the employer.... The worker always has the !right to leave his 
employer, but has he the means to do so?  No, he does it in order to 
sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same 
hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer.
        "Thus the "worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom. 
lacking any means for its possible realization. ant consequently it is 
only a fictitious liberty. an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole 
life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of 
terms of serfdom--"voluntary from the juridical point of view but 
compulsory from an economic sense--broken up by momentarily brief 
interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is 
real slavery" (endnote 36)
        
        Rand sees an actual "equality of opportunity" in existence, at 
least in American society, and she paints a picture of labor sans 
exploitation, i.e. individual labor, production by individual hands 
utilizing resources gained from private property. For example, "Man 
has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to 
support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own 
mind." Also, "without property rights, no other rights are possible. 
Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has 
no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. 
The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a 
slave." (endnote 37)  Interestingly, Bakunin would likely agree with 
this latter statement, that laborers who produce goods for the benefit 
of others are "slaves," or, in fact, "serfs." Bakunin, however, 
suggested that this was the standard condition in most of 
industrialist/capitalist Europe. Bakunin wrote of the numerous ironies 
inherent in the capitalist system. For instance, in spite of all their 
labor, "the masses !will !never !come !to !own !property," and 
therefore "their labor does not emancipate and ennoble them, for, all 
their labor not withstanding, they are condemned to remain eternally 
without property...."  In reality, labor is not a measure of property 
ownership, for the common worker is perpetually unable to save 
enough money to purchase property.  Indeed, Bakunin saw the very 
opposite as being true.  "We see that the richest property owners . . . 
are precisely those who work the least or who do not work at all." 
Actually, he clarifies this by saying that the wealthy classes do, in 
fact, work, but not the "productive labor" of the proletariat masses. 
Rather, theirs is a different kind of work, the "labor of exploitation," 
the business of trade and investment, the "labor" of increasing private 
capital with the products of other's "productive" labor.
        
        "It is evident to anyone who is not blind about this matter that 
productive labor creates wealth and yields the producers only misery, 
and it is only non-productive, exploiting labor that yields property.... 
!What !is !property, !what !is !capital !in !their !present !form? For 
the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the 
right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since 
neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by 
labor--that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the 
work of someone else. The right to exploit the work of those who 
possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell 
their productive power to the lucky owners of both.
        "Hence it follows that so long as property and capital exist on 
the one hand. and labor on the other hand, the first constituting the 
bourgeois class and the other the proletariat, the worker will be the 
slave and the bourgeois the master." (endnote 38)
        
         If economic exploitation is inevitable so long as some "lucky 
owners" possess the means necessary to live fruitful lives, what is this 
"luck" attributable to? Why do some "individuals" have an advantage 
over others? "[W]hat is it that separates property and capital from 
labor? What distinguishes the classes economically and politically 
from one another, what destroys equality and perpetuates inequality, 
the privilege of the few and the slavery of the many? It is the right of 
inheritance." (endnote 39)  To Bakunin, this is a lynchpin. The right 
of inheritance is the factor which allows massive concentrations of 
property and capital to accumulate, not in the hands of isolate 
individuals, as Rand would endorse, but rather, along family lines, 
constituting a !transgenerational gathering of wealth, granting each 
lucky recipient the legal right to acquire more wealth by way of 
luxurious "exploitative labor," and exempting him/her from gritty, 
menial "productive labor." Bakunin saw this as nothing less than "the 
very basis of the !juridical !family and the !State," and thus the 
abolition of inheritance was imperative to establishing a genuine 
Stateless society. In fact,
        
        "The only thing that the State can and must do . . . is gradually 
to modify the right of inheritance so as to achieve its complete 
abolition as soon as possible. . . . We claim that this right will 
necessarily have to be abolished because as long as !inheritance lasts, 
there will be !hereditary economic inequality--not the natural 
inequality of individuals, but the artificial inequality of classes--which 
will necessarily continue to be expressed in hereditary inequality of 
the development and cultivation of intelligence and will remain the 
source and sanction of all political and social inequality." (endnote 
40)
        
        While Bakunin had no problem with !sentimental !inheritance, 
that is, "objects of slight value which . . . have personal meaning." 
His concern was for any "substantial [capital] inheritance" which 
would allow heirs the "possibility of living without working." 
(endnote 41) All other property would be collectivized by the 
community, and made available to all its members and "productive 
associations." This would probably constitute "theft" in the 
Objectivist paradigm, but Bakunin examines its justice:
        
        "Will this abolition be !just?
        "A man, we are told, has acquired through his labor several tens 
or hundreds of thousands of francs, 8 million, and he will not have 
the right to leave them as an inheritance to his children! Is this not an 
attack on natural right, is this not unjust plunder?
        "[I]t has been proven 8 thousand times that an isolated worker 
cannot produce much more than what he consumes. We challenge any 
real worker, any worker who does not enjoy a single privilege, to 
amass tens or hundreds of thousands of francs, or millions! That 
would be quite impossible. Therefore, if some individuals in present-
day society do acquire such great sums, it is not by their labor that 
they do so but by their privilege, that is, by a juridically legalized 
injustice. And since a person inevitably takes from others whatever he 
does not gain from his own, we have the right to say that all such 
profits are thefts of collective labor, committed by a few privileged 
individuals with the sanction of the State and under its protection." 
(endnote 42)
        
        In other words, if a thief died and willed his "ill-gotten gain" to 
his children, would the children have a right to the stolen property? 
Not legally. So if "property is theft," to borrow Proudhon's quip, and 
the fruit of exploited labor is simply legal theft, then the only factor 
giving the children of a deceased capitalist a right to inherit the 
"booty" is the law, the State. As Bakunin wrote, "Ghosts should not 
rule and oppress this world, which belongs only to the living."
        What is Ayn Rand's response to this? Unfortunately, she has no 
response. The Ayn Rand Lexicon, an alphabetized glossary of 
quotations of Rand on myriad topics, published after her death, has no 
entry on inheritance rights, and nowhere, in all of her elaborate and 
occasionally repetitious descriptions of the virtue of property does she 
mention the issue of inheritance, neither to endorse it nor condemn it. 
But what would she say? If she were consistent to her doctrine of 
individualism and independent achievement, she would logically 
condemn it. After all, if an individual were to be given an abundance 
of land from a deceased parent, then they would have an advantage 
over their neighbors, an advantage which they did nothing directly to 
earn. They would be reaping the fruits of collective labor, to a limited 
degree, that is, the collective labor of numerous ancestors, whose 
horde of property grows along familial lines, giving each generation 
an even greater advantage. There is nothing "independent" or 
"individual" about investing a !parents "hard-eared" money.
        However, if she condemned inheritance, then, considering her 
background, she would be severely violating her own past, and 
likewise, her self-interest. While her theories may be flawed, she was 
no idiot. The fact that she never mentioned the topic of inheritance 
suggests, not that it never crossed her mind, but rather, that she had 
no serious ideological problems with it. If she properly saw it as a 
violation of the Objectivist ideal, she would likely have devoted an 
entire essay to condemning it. Instead it is conspicuously absent from 
her tenets. We therefore do not know how she would have responded 
to Bakunin's program. But it would have been intriguing, no doubt.
        
        

VI. Conclusion
        
        There has, of late, been a profound confusion in the minds of 
many, who have mistakenly described the Libertarian Party as being 
"anarchist." It has been the aim of this essay to clarify the specific 
nature of this erroneous comparison.
        This confusion, however, is interesting, in and of itself. It is 
rooted in this society's general acceptance, as an objective reality, the 
presence of a fairly powerful state. We, the American public, have 
been lulled into accepting an image of politics wherein we see our 
options only as "moderate democracy," "extremist dictatorship," or 
"chaotic anarchy." Government, to the average American, is a bit like 
the porridge that Goldilocks sampled in the house of the three bears: 
"too much government," "not enough government," or "just the right 
amount of government." "We're losing the ability to differentiate 
between politics and economics, and what different governments 
really stand for. This is not simply sad, it's dangerous.
             The Libertarian Party is seen as anarchistic only because, 
today any group which advocates a drastic reduction in State power of 
any kind, regardless of economic policy, is interpreted as "anarchist." 
This would not have happened a century ago, in Europe or America. 
These subtleties were much more clearly understood and delineated. 
They knew the difference between anarchism, (State) communism, 
and Libertarian (laissez-faire) capitalism. The differences were 
important back then. Now we are out of practice, and it is difficult to 
distinguish them. It is the sincere wish of the author that the 
"landscape" graph will help facilitate the !reattunement necessary to 
recognize the genuine positions of present and future 
political/economic groups. The author has personally found this graph 
invaluable in that regard.
        Bakunin once wrote that, "[L]iberty without socialism is 
privilege and injustice, and that socialism without liberty is slavery 
and brutality." (endnote 43)  It has been the goal of the author to 
illustrate that, in Bakunin's words, the Libertarian Party represents 
"liberty without socialism," and therefore, "privilege and injustice." 
The final assessment is ultimately yours.
        


Endnotes
        1. Utne Reader, No. 48; Nov./Dec. 1991. The center fold for 
this issue included a multi-colored display entitled "The American 
Political Landscape: An Alternative View." No specific authors were 
cited. It should be noted that the version presented in this essay has 
been substantially modified and expanded, and all modifications are 
strictly the product of the author.
        2. More often than not, the industrial complex of a fascist state 
is often composed of foreign corporations. This is particularly the 
case in most "Third World" nations, where the relationship to foreign 
investors and domestic fascism is seen as having "imperialististic" or 
"colonialistic" implications.
        3. Bookchin, Murray; The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence 
and Dissolution of Hierarchy, N.Y: Black Rose, Rev. 1991, p. !liv. 
Bookchin refers to his theory of Social Ecology as "Libertarian 
Municipalism."
        4. Angeles, Peter A.; The HarperCollins Dictionary of 
Philosophy, Second Edition, N.Y: HarperPerennial, 1992, pp. 11-12.
        5. Maximoff, G. P. (Ed.); The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: 
Scientific Anarchism, N.Y: Free Press, l953, p. 271.
        6. Baldwin, Roger N.(Ed.); Kropotkin's Revolutionary 
Pamphlets, N.Y: Benjamin Blom, 1927, p. 46.
        7. Rocker, Rudolf; !Anarco-Syndicalism, London: Phoenix 
Press, 1938, pp. l4- 15.
        8. Ibid., p. 18.
        9. Chomsky, Noam; !Radical !Priorities, Montreal, Canada: 
Black Rose, 1981, p.245
        10. Rand, Ayn; !Capitism. !The !Unknown !Ideal, N.Y: Signet 
1946, p.46.
        11. Binswanger, Harry (Ed.); !The !Ayn !Rand !Lexicon: 
!Objectivism !from !A !to !Z, N.Y: Meridian, 1986, p.363.
        12. Rand, op. cit. 
        13. Binswanger, op. cit., 190
        14. Ibid., p. 388.
        15. All of these essays are published in Rand, op. cit.
        16. Binswanger, op. cit., p. 95.
        17. Rand, op.cit., pp. 19-20.
        18. Binswanger, op. cit., p. 57.
        19. Rand, op. cit., p. 192.
        20. Binswanger, op. cit., p. 475.
        21. Ibid., p. 163.
        22. Ibid.,p.21.
        23. Ibid., p. 253. 
        24. Ibid., p. 254. 
        25. Ibid., p. 344. 
        26. Ibid.,p.218. 
        27. Lehning, Arther (Ed.); !Michael !Bakunin: !Selected 
!Writings, London: Jonathan Cape, 1973.
        28. Maximoff, op. cit., p. 157 
        29. Binswanger, op. cit., pp. 218-9.
        30. Ibid., p. 214. 
        31. Ibid.,p.218. 
        32. Maximoff, op. cit., pp. 167-8. 
        33. Rand, op. cit.. p. 192. 
        34. Ibid., p. 46. 
        35. Binswanger, op. cit., p. 215 
        36. Maximoff, op. cit., p. 188. 
        37. Binswanger, op. cit., pp. 388-9. 
        38. Maximoff, op. cit., pp. 179-81.
        39. Cutler, Robert M. (Ed.); !From !Out !of !the !Dustbin 
!Bakunin's !Basic !Writing's 1869-1871, Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1985, p. 
126.
        40. Lehning, op. cit., p. 109. 
        41. Cutler, op. cit., p. 127. 
        42. Ibid., p. 129. 
        43. Lehning, op. cit., p. 110.  


