user preferences

Are Republican “Libertarians” Anarchists?

category north america / mexico | anarchist movement | feature author Tuesday October 22, 2013 06:22author by Wayne Priceauthor email drwdprice at aol dot com Report this post to the editors

The Accusation of Anarchism

featured image

Democratic Party politicians have denounced right-wing Republicans as "anarchists." Why? Are they "anarchists"? What about rightwingers who call themselves "libertarians"? Are "anarcho-capitalists" really anarchists? Are they consistent with the tradition of "individualist anarchism"?

Historically this is very unusual. Far-rightists have usually been called “conservatives.” (They are rarely called the more accurate term, “reactionaries” -- those who want to go backward.) Those in the center or the left may call them other names, such as “nuts” or “fascists.” (They are mostly not “fascists” in the sense of wanting to overthrow bourgeois democracy and replace it with a rightwing dictatorship — but they shade into such people.) But they were rarely, if ever, called “anarchists.” Why now?

Are Republican “Libertarians” Anarchists?

A strange thing happened during the October 2013 battle in the US Congress over a government shutdown and threat of default. The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, denounced the Republicans as “anarchists.” So did Elizabeth Warren, one of the most liberal Senators. As did the editorial page of the New York Times. Other leading politicians and pundits also called the far-right Republicans (who dominate their party caucus) “anarchists.”

Historically this is very unusual. Far-rightists have usually been called “conservatives.” (They are rarely called the more accurate term, “reactionaries” -- those who want to go backward.) Those in the center or the left may call them other names, such as “nuts” or “fascists.” (They are mostly not “fascists” in the sense of wanting to overthrow bourgeois democracy and replace it with a rightwing dictatorship — but they shade into such people.) But they were rarely, if ever, called “anarchists.” Why now?

There may be three reasons. One is that the real anarchist movement has grown and impacted on popular consciousness. Anarchists were part of the Occupy movement. Calling rightists “anarchists” manages to smear them with the conventional opprobrium of the left-wing, masked, bomb-throwing, window-smashing, anarchists (as widely pictured). Simultaneously it smears real anarchists with the opprobrium of the far-right politicians. For once, the Democrats have turned the tables on the Republicans. After all, the latter regularly denounce Obama and the Democrats as “socialists,” or even “communists” or “Marxists” (leaving aside “Muslims”). If only.

A second reason is that the far-right is loudly “anti-statist,” due to its supposed love of “liberty” and “freedom” (but not “democracy” and certainly not “equality”). The newspapers refer to them as “libertarians,” meaning pro-capitalist anti-statists (almost no one knows that “libertarian” once meant socialist-anarchist, and still does in much of the world). They declare, in the famous words of President Ronald Reagan, “The government is not the solution; the government is the problem.” They claim they oppose Obama’s Affordable Care Act because they want “to keep government out of health care.”

A third reason, I suspect, was that the far-rightists were generally acting in a destructive, uncompromising, and chaotic fashion. For the Democratic politicians and editorialists, this brought to mind the behavior of the “anarchic” anarchists, who are supposedly committed to chaos, destruction, and ruin.

Is the Far-Right Against Government?

It is true that the far-right loudly declares its opposition to government and a love of liberty. An analogy might be seen in 1920s Germany. Then there were large workers’ parties, the Socialist and the Communist parties. The far-right organized its own party, which aimed to draw off some of the discontent channeled through the left parties. It called itself, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. So it was “national” and “German” but also “socialist” and “workers” — in short, “National Socialist” (“Nazi”). But its leaders really aimed to provide benefits for German big business, not for the workers. (Again, I am not calling the Republicans “fascist.”) Today, in the US, there is a strong, valuable, belief in freedom and individual rights, as well as (a wholly justified) distrust of government. So it makes sense for the right to claim to represent that anti-government, pro-freedom sentiment, whatever its real program.

In certain ways the right really is against government. Of course it opposes taxes, or at least taxes on its core constituency, the wealthy. It does not agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s comment, “Taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.” It wants others to pay this price. (An anarchist society would not have taxes because it would not have either a state or capitalism.)

Further, it is against any use of the government for social benefits for the middle class, the working class, or the poor. It has opposed every social program ever implemented, no matter how popular they became: from Social Security to Aid to Dependent Children to “Obamacare.” They oppose any government enterprise, no matter how efficient, from the post office to the Tennessee Valley Authority. The question for them is the class issue. Benefits for the working class strengthens it, makes it more independent of the boss class. If the government provided enough services, then people might ask whether business is necessary, and think in terms of some sort of socialism.

The right vigorously opposes any sort of government regulation which effects the rich. Anti-pollution laws may be good for the whole community, but cut into profits. Worker safety laws, anti-discrimination in hiring laws, and protection of the right to unionize strengthen the workers against the owners. All are opposed. They oppose laws against landlords’ discrimination against African-Americans or GLBT people.

In short, the wealthy do not want to be told what to do with “their” property or “their” workers. That is what the right’s “anti-state” program comes down to.

The right also campaigns around any government limitation on gun ownership. The right raises this topic in order to get support, helping it to fight for its real, pro-business, agenda. It is almost impossible in the US to have a sensible discussion about guns at this time, or for the majority to get its voice heard. Authentic anarchists are not for banning guns, but might be for some reasonable community regulations for safety. In any case the right is not for replacing the standing, official, army with a popular militia, which is what the Second Amendment is really about — and which anarchists favor.

However, the rest of their program is quite heavily pro-statist. There are parts of the government which they cannot get enough of.

The Republican Party is strongly for the expansion of the US military (so are most Democrats). They never see a weapon, or missile, or base they do not like, especially if it is built or located in their district. This is consistent with their mostly pro-war stance. Military spending is actually a huge subsidy to a central group of big businesses. It is a form of government underwriting of the corporate economy.

Similarly, the rightists are strongly pro-police and heavily subsidize police forces, local and national. They support big government snooping into everyone’s lives through the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and all the other alphabetical agencies — unless it involves spying on business secrets. They want a strong police force to prevent immigrants from coming over the border, and to expel as many immigrants as possible. For justification, they build up hysteria about war, terrorism, and crime. (Again, these policies overlap with most Democrats.)

Finally is their use of government to impose their cultural and religious values on everyone else. To whip up support for their core program of supporting big business, they deliberately play up cultural and “moral” issues, especially around sex. They have vigorously campaigned to outlaw abortion at all stages. They have tried to limit contraceptives. They have opposed sexual education for youth. They have sought to suppress homosexuals in every way. These very intrusive policies are to be carried out through the legislatures, courts, and police of local and national governments.

This ties in with their effort to use the government to impose (their version of) Christianity onto everyone, in the form of school prayers, other public prayers, denial of evolution in the schools, twisting school curricula in other ways, public displays of Christian symbols, and open rejection of Islam and other religions. They are also among the strongest supporters of the drug laws. They campaign for “getting tough on crime,” that is, more police, more prisons, more executions.

These are not the policies of “anarchists,” nor of “libertarians,” however you stretch the definitions.

Groupings on the Right

I have been writing of “the right,” “the far-right,” and “the Republicans.” A conservative reader might object that I have been melding together a range of people with quite a variety of views. There is some truth in this complaint. I have been summarizing the overwhelmingly common views held within today’s Republican Party, especially its dominant right wing. Yet there are many variants of these views, often subtle.

For example, Rand Paul and his son Ron Paul are well-known far-right Republicans, with their own quirks. The oppose the Fed (the central bank of the US, without which it would not work very well) and want to put US money back on a “gold standard,” which would no doubt cause a depression. They call themselves “libertarians” and oppose most of the laws and rules that let the government spy on US citizens. They oppose the big military and the US’s current wars. Their pro-civil liberties and anti-war stance has made them somewhat popular among people who might otherwise be attracted to anarchism.

Yet they are both strongly against women’s right to choice to have an abortion if they want. For this, the Rands do not mind having the police intervene in the most personal of matters. Similarly, they are for repressive governmental anti-immigration policies. These are hardly “libertarian” opinions.

There are those who have tried to be more consistent than the Rands or the Republican right. Calling themselves “libertarians,” they oppose the big military and overseas wars, are against large police forces, are against government spying (but are not against all military and police forces), are for civil liberties and free speech (but not for civil rights for oppressed people), against government regulation of business, big or small, against government support of unions, against laws related to drugs, sex, abortion, and “morality,” etc. They even have a party, the Libertarian Party. Ron Paul ran for president on the party’s ticket (a compromise on the part of both, since he does not agree with its pro-choice position).

Even if these so-called “libertarians” fully reject the pro-state opinions of the Republicans — they still have an inconsistency. They reject the big, bureaucratic, centralized state. But they accept big, bureaucratic, centralized businesses. Why is this any better? Would not the big corporations of today’s monopoly capitalism work together and be the new (big, bureaucratic, centralized) state?

Once upon a time, there were small businesses and a weak state. Over time these businesses evolved into gigantic multinational semi-monopolies. The weak state also evolved, partly to try to control the huge businesses for the good of all but mainly to serve the big businesses for the good of the corporate rich. A magical return to the days of small businesses and a weak state would just start the cycle all over.


Finally, there are those who believe in a free-market capitalist economy, completely unregulated because there is no state at all (Rothbard 1978). Besides labeling themselves “libertarians,” they have also called themselves “anarcho-capitalists” or similar terms. That is, they themselves claim to be “anarchists.”

Anarchism, as a historical movement, has never been simply an anti-statist struggle. Anarchists have opposed all oppressions, in every sphere: political, social, familial, religious, and economic. A hypothetical society without a state but with, say, human slavery, would hardly be regarded as “anarchist.” In particular, anarchists have always opposed both the state and capitalism as such. The “anarcho-capitalists” do not.

Nor would their program work very well. As they see it, the state would be “replaced” by private security forces, armed rent-a-cops. We could expect the big corporations to hire the largest private police forces. Then they would work together to develop common policies, including coordinating their private police/military forces. This would then be the new (capitalist) state, in all but name. (Socialist-anarchists also propose to replace the state’s police and military by voluntary armed people, so long as it remains necessary. But this would be in a society of equality, with coordination by workers’ and community assemblies and councils.)

“Anarcho-capitalism” was created by mixing classical liberalism with “individualist anarchism.” But there were core aspects of individualist anarchism which were left out of the mixture.

Benjamin Tucker was a great US individualist-anarchist of the 19th century. He opposed “state-socialism” and advocated use of the market rather than planning. But he regarded himself as anti-capitalist and a “socialist.” He saw anarchism and state-socialism as “the two schools of socialistic thought” which were “united by the common claim that labor shall be put in possession of its own” (Tucker, 1966; p. 62). Like Proudhon, he wanted enterprises larger than an individual to be be “voluntary associations” (p. 67), self-managed by the workers. “The anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian democrats” (p. 69). He based his analysis and his program on the labor theory of value -- as it appeared in various versions in Smith, Proudhon, and Marx. He saw this as “the basis of a new economic philosophy” (p. 63).

Rothbard and other theorists of libertarian capitalism reject both the anti-capitalism/pro-socialism of Tucker’s individualist anarchism and the labor theory of value. They advocate the wage system of capitalism, where workers work for a boss, who pays them as little as possible and works them as hard as possible, producing a profit from their labor (that is, exploiting them). Instead, anarchists advocate self-managed workers’ associations.

In my opinion, Tucker’s theory (and Proudhon’s) pointed in two contradictory directions. One was toward revolutionary socialist-anarchism, as began to be developed by Bakunin and Kropotkin. (For example, Voltairine de Cleyre developed from a follower of Tucker to a class-struggle anarchist, without abandoning her basic beliefs — Brigati 2004.) The other was to pro-capitalist, pro-market, politics. That is, out of anarchism.

I am usually pretty broad-minded about “who is an anarchist?” questions. There have been debates among anarchists as whether to include “primitivists,” “mutualists,” Pareconists, gradualists, etc. In general I do not care. I would rather argue that, say, “primitivist” anarchists are wrong on various topics, than argue whether they are anarchists. (People have accused me of not “really” being an anarchist, due to my various unorthodoxies, although I think I am in the broad anarchist tradition.) However, I draw the line at “anarcho-capitalists.” People who support capitalism may be good people with all sorts of virtues, but they are not anarchists. As I have shown, even the historical individualist (pro-market) anarchists believed in a version of decentralized, libertarian, socialism.

It is a sort of back-handed compliment that even conventional politicians and editorialists raise “anarchism” as an insult to attack the far-right Republicans, who present themselves as against the state. It shows that anarchism has made an impression on society. It is also a compliment that some supporters of unfettered capitalism declare themselves to be anarchists. Unfortunately, both uses of anarchism are misleading. Anarchism is the struggle for the fullest achievement of freedom in all spheres, the end of the state, of capitalism, of classes, and of all other oppressions. Nothing else.


Brigati, A.J. (Ed.) (2004). The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader. Oakland CA: AK Press.

Tucker, Benjamin (1893/1966). “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far they Agree and Wherein they Differ.” In Patterns of Anarchy (eds.: L. I. Krimerman & L. Perry). Garden City NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday. Pp. 61—69).

Rothbard, Murray (1978). For a New Liberty; The Libertarian Manifesto (revised ed.). NY: Collier Books.

*written for

author by geral - human rightspublication date Tue Oct 22, 2013 00:34author email gsosbee at gmail dot comauthor address po box 3374,harlingen,texas 78551author phone 9569701054Report this post to the editors

See twenty years of my work in the links below for an insight into the political & societal corruption of USA by murderous bullies of fbi/cia:


federal burro:
forced suicide by torture is murder:

The Age of Madness:

fbi operative says:"kill yourself, geral sosbee":

Violence and the nation that engenders and feeds on same.:

Related Link:
author by Wayne Pricepublication date Wed Oct 23, 2013 01:33Report this post to the editors

(1) If anyone asks why I did not discuss the Democrats, it is because anarchists have to approach them in a different way. Anarchists need to expose the "conservative" Republicans for their false claim to be anti-state. But anarchists need to expose the Democrats, or at least their liberal wing, for their false claim to be using the state to do good things for working people.

(2) Jon Bekkan has pointed out that I reversed the family relationship of the Pauls. Ron is the father and Rand is the son.

(3) I always appreciate the way the volunteers at Anarkismo set up my articles. However in this case, I do not understand what the picture is about. The color is attractive, but what is it?

author by marcpublication date Wed Oct 23, 2013 05:48Report this post to the editors


To say that Proudhon was, or could even be understood as pro-capitalist, shows a completely misunderstanding about Proudhon,s work. He manifested extremely, even violently against concentration of capital, against wage labour, from his very first work What is property? until his latest.

author by tpublication date Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:26Report this post to the editors

Those are the anarcho-capitalist colors.

Related Link:
author by anonymouspublication date Wed Oct 23, 2013 19:27Report this post to the editors

Not sure if someone else has already mentioned: You said Ron Paul was rand's son, and its the other way around. Some people either might not actually know, or people might not take you seriously if you appear to be undereducated.

author by Wayne Pricepublication date Thu Oct 24, 2013 02:45Report this post to the editors

1) Thanks to t for explaining the design. I did not know that yellow/gold and black were the "anarcho-capitalist" flag, as red and black are the class-struggle anarchist flag.

2) Marc says, "To say that Proudhon was, or could even be understood as pro-capitalist" is terribly wrong". Actually I did not say that. I said that Tucker's views led in two directions, toward socialist-anarchism or toward pro-capitalism, and that I thought the same of Proudhon, whom Tucker admired. They were not pro-capitalist themselves, but advocated markets and competition, instead of a cooperative, democratically-planned-from-the-bottom-up economy. Today we might call them advocates of a decentralized market socialism. As I pointed out, when Rothbard invented so-called "anarcho-capitalism," he took their pro-market, pro-competition, aspects, but left out their anti-capitalist, pro-cooperative labor within each enterprise, and pro-law of value.

author by Wayne Pricepublication date Thu Oct 24, 2013 03:29Report this post to the editors

The following was sent to me on a public list in response to this essay:

I've never been big on definitions and I'm not even sure what the word "anarchist" means and I've never been big on policing identities, so it didn't bother me much that the term was applied to them. You are certainly right, Wayne, that they do not conform to a variety of scripts called anarchist by some, but those damned wingnuts threatened the very existence of state and capital, perhaps irreparably damaged American political and financial sovereignty, shut down the war machine -- at least the urge to bomb Syria -- for at least a week. That's pretty intense, dude. Kudos to those crazy dangerous bastards.

To which I responded:

Kudos? It is true that far-right Republicans do not quite fit the definition of "anarchist," being for the imperial state and for unfettered capitalist exploitation and environmental degradation, but, hey! let's not get into "policing identities"!

I have noticed a sort of anarchist masochism, saying, Let the system collapse, let there be famine and chaos and worldwide depression and ecological catastrophe, but that will be swell, because then there is a chance for anarchism!

Once the social democrats and Stalinists accused far-leftists of believing "The worse, the better" (the worse capitalism is, the better for the revolution). We ultra-leftists always denied that we thought that (since it is not necessarily true). During the early 30s, the Stalinists went through an ultra-left, sectarian, phase of their own; in Germany they openly declared, "Nach Hitler, uns!" (After Hitler, us!) This too was not true.

I suspect that many anarchists develop this mindset because they feel so helpless and isolated politically, while watching the system go through crisis after crisis. I do not know what will happen, but I hope that society will come to anarchism *before* there is too much of a catastrophe.

As to the aborted US attack on Syria, it was largely held off due to popular opposition, which was channeled into both parties, particularly the more "liberal" Democrats.

author by Red and Black Actionpublication date Mon Nov 25, 2013 21:58Report this post to the editors

Wayne says " I am usually pretty broad-minded about “who is an anarchist?” questions. There have been debates among anarchists as whether to include “primitivists,” “mutualists,” Pareconists, gradualists, etc. In general I do not care. I would rather argue that, say, “primitivist” anarchists are wrong on various topics, than argue whether they are anarchists ... However, I draw the line at “anarcho-capitalists.” People who support capitalism may be good people with all sorts of virtues, but they are not anarchists.."

So, just to take Wayne's example, "primitivists" who support an apocalyptic and genocidal collapse of civilization are "anarchists" who are merely "wrong on various topics" because they're against capitalism? Muralists who want a competitive market-based socialism, complete with wages and commodities, likewise. Gradualists who think you can abolish capitalism with coffee shops, same camp.

Minor issues. After all, it important to to be "broad-minded". So long as someone calls themselves an anarchist, and does not like capitalism, fuck yeah.

Surely it matters at least as much what you want to replace capitalism and the state with, than the bare bones fact that you oppose them...

author by voluntaryistonlypublication date Sat Dec 14, 2013 21:57Report this post to the editors

interesting article on "anarcho-capitalist's" I can see (as an anarcho-capitalist) that you & most anarchists would have trouble with it. but before you dismiss me out of hand, please hear me out...

firstly most anarcho-capitalist's would also term themselves "voluntaryists" too, in that they would advocate that only voluntary associations as opposed to coercive one's are the way forward. in an anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist world, one would own their own property, the fruit of their labor (in the case of working for someone else, the complete wage packet, no deductions from government/taxes etc.) and would be free to decide on how that wealth is used. This also means that those that want to form any collective would also be free to do so, so long as no one is "required/obligated" to belong to or work for that collective, or provide funds to it.

if defense syndicates form, so what? So long as none are again obliged to subscribe, who cares...

the further questions of who does what & who or what provides any "public services" does not even matter, those that want such things & care about them will provide them, those that do not won't, no one will be forced to provide what they do not want to.

the aim of anarcho-capitalist's / voluntaryist's is on the whole exactly the same as any other kind of anarchist. NO GOVERNMENT, NO COERCIVE FORCE ALLOWED. ALL ASSOCIATIONS & INTERACTIONS PURELY VOLUNTARY. surely these are your aims too?

Peace & Freedom through Voluntary Exchanges Only!

"we CANNOT select which services we "BUY" from government, we CANNOT "CHOOSE" which services to have, we are NOT free, but slaves to their system. no “SERVICE” should be provided at the barrel of a gun, that is not freedom it is tyranny.

"bomb, Semtex, anarchist, plot, over-through government, target, jihad, war, crusade, terminate, mayhem, terror, chaos, carnage, infidel, take-out, etc… we will not be bowed, you will not suppress us... if you are reading this, because you are snooping on my comments, emails, blog posts, etc, you are the terrorist, not me"

Number of comments per page
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
Employees at the Zarfati Garage in Mishur Adumim vote to strike on July 22, 2014. (Photo courtesy of Ma’an workers union)

Front page

Reseña del libro de José Luis Carretero Miramar “Eduardo Barriobero: Las Luchas de un Jabalí” (Queimada Ediciones, 2017)

Análise da crise política do início da queda do governo Temer

Dès maintenant, passons de la défiance à la résistance sociale !

17 maggio, giornata internazionale contro l’omofobia.

Los Mártires de Chicago: historia de un crimen de clase en la tierra de la “democracia y la libertad”

Strike in Cachoeirinha

(Bielorrusia) ¡Libertad inmediata a nuestro compañero Mikola Dziadok!

DAF’ın Referandum Üzerine Birinci Bildirisi:

Cajamarca, Tolima: consulta popular y disputa por el territorio

Statement on the Schmidt Case and Proposed Commission of Inquiry

Aodhan Ó Ríordáin: Playing The Big Man in America

Nós anarquistas saudamos o 8 de março: dia internacional de luta e resistência das mulheres!

Özgürlüğümüz Mücadelemizdedir

IWD 2017: Celebrating a new revolution

Solidarité avec Théo et toutes les victimes des violences policières ! Non à la loi « Sécurité Publique » !

Solidaridad y Defensa de las Comunidades Frente al Avance del Paramilitarismo en el Cauca

A Conservative Threat Offers New Opportunities for Working Class Feminism

De las colectivizaciones al 15M: 80 años de lucha por la autogestión en España

False hope, broken promises: Obama’s belligerent legacy

Primer encuentro feminista Solidaridad – Federación Comunista Libertaria

Devrimci Anarşist Tutsak Umut Fırat Süvarioğulları Açlık Grevinin 39 Gününde

The Fall of Aleppo

Italia - Ricostruire opposizione sociale organizzata dal basso. Costruire un progetto collettivo per l’alternativa libertaria.

Recordando a César Roa, luchador de la caña

© 2005-2017 Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]