This essay, first appearing as Chapter 4 of Markets Not Capitalism (eds. Charles W. Johnson and Gary Chartier), is an examination of the mechanisms of state capitalism and the monopolistic privileges that sustain it, as well as a close and … Continue reading
This is the third issue of the Molinari Institute’s quarterly magazine, The Industrial Radical. Editor Roderick Long writes, The third issue (Spring 2013) of The Industrial Radical will be back from the printers and on its way to subscribers shortly, … Continue reading
These three articles raise a challenge against the inter-national system of debt and the crippling burden inflicted by neoliberal debt policies and financial institutions on people who should not be shaken down for even one dime of the oligarchs’ power-trips and “development” policies. A liberated society means a society where no-one is forced to pay off debts for political capitalists, and the only humane, or even sane, demand is total and unconditional Repudiation Now.
This is a booklet against elections, parties, constitutional government and voting. It reprints eight essays on Anarchist politics by Charles W. Johnson, Kevin Carson, and Roderick T. Long – and a special guest appearance by Randolph Bourne – on the failure of electoral politics, the structural limits that quarantine and neutralize any threat of reform from within party politicking, and the possibility and promise of radical activism and d.i.y. social transformation, beyond the quagmire of majoritarian votes, party politicking, political lobbying, legalistic reforms and elected government.
In this essay, the individualist Anarchist writer Charles Johnson offers an analysis of the concrete mechanisms of capitalism, and of how the revolutionary potential of free economic relationships is diverted and deformed when markets are constrained to labor under bosses, monopoly and government. Johnson revisits, and updates, Benjamin Tucker’s classic “Four Monopolies” analysis of state capitalism: the case for Tucker’s free-market anticapitalism is stronger than ever, as we take into account not only the growth and retrenchment of the Land Monopoly, Money Monopoly, Patent Monopoly, and Protectionist Monopoly, but also the metastatic spread of state-capitalist monopolies into Agribusiness, Infrastructure, Utilities, Health Care, and Regulatory Protectionism.
Market Anarchists should oppose neoliberalism and its so-called “privatization” schemes because we are for free markets and private property. What they call “privatization” means only private profit from political power. What we mean is something entirely different, and it may be time to mint some new language in order to talk about the difference.
In “Five Theses on Freed-Market Social Movements and Self-Regulating Anarchy,” Sheldon Richman, Charles Johnson, and David D’Amato look at the social and economic possibilities for social order to emerge without the need to impose social control – for spontaneous order and people-powered social movements against capitalism, racism, and ecocide within an anarchic freed market. Includes Richman’s “Regulation Red Herring,” D’Amato’s “The Free Market’s Regulatory Model,” and Johnson’s “We Are Market Forces,” “I Oppose Civil Rights Acts because I Support Civil Rights Movements,” and “The Clean Water Act vs. Clean Water.”
The purpose of this essay is political revolution. And I don’t mean a revolution in libertarian political theory, or a revolutionary new political strategy, or the kind of revolution that consists in electing a cadre of new and better politicians … Continue reading
The case for a radical libertarian feminism — a critique of the state and of patriarchy which understands both as parts of an interlocking system of oppression, and which draws on the insights of both radical libertarianism, and radical feminism, … Continue reading
Libertarians and anarchists all agree on the need for a free society, based on principles of individual liberty and free association. But once we are free, what kind of associations should we voluntarily form? Should we see our opposition to state coercion as a
thin commitment, which can be happily joined to absolutely any set of values and projects, as long as they are carried out non-coercively? Should anti-statists happily accept any social arrangement, as long as it’s peaceful? Or should we see opposition to state coercion as one strand among others in a
thick bundled of intertwined social commitments, aiming to resist multiple, interlocking systems of oppression?