Eric Fleischmann of the Center for a Stateless Society has recently published an article titled “The Age-Old Question: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Anarchism?” In this article, Fleischmann denies that Anarcho-Capitalists are the heirs of Benjamin Tucker and the other historical market anarchists, an inheritance that Fleischmann claims for his position, and even claims that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists at all.

As we have done substantial research on this question, we can prove conclusively that Fleischmann is wrong and we can do so succinctly.

First, to define anarchism, Fleischmann relies on Goldman, Graeber, and Kropotkin, three anarcho-communists. You might ask, since Fleischmann claims to be the heir of the historical market anarchists, why not give a definition from Benjamin Tucker or Victor Yarros or George Schumm? Why rely on communists to define anarchism when you claim to be a market anarchist?

But even in these communist definitions of anarchism, Fleischmann admits to being unable to exclude anarcho-capitalism. Fleischmann confesses “it would seem that these definitions would seem to point to anarcho-capitalism, being, at least in its basic principles of voluntary exchange and individual property ownership, a form of anarchism.”

If even by communist definitions anarcho-capitalists must be admitted to be anarchists, where can Fleischmann possibly turn to defend his thesis that it is not?

Fleischmann’s solution is to turn to a quote by an obscure John Clark who says that “sophisticated and developed anarchist theory proceeds further. It does not stop with a criticism of political organization, but goes on to investigate the authoritarian nature of economic inequality and private property, hierarchical economic structures, traditional education, the patriarchal family, class and racial discrimination, and rigid sex- and age-roles, to mention just a few of the more important topics.”

Well there you go. Anarcho-capitalists cannot be anarchists because John Clark (kinda) says so.

In Fleischmann’s own words, “the abolition of the state and voluntary association of a genuinely free market is not enough to qualify as anarchism.”

As an alleged heir of the market anarchists, Fleischmann should have consulted Benjamin Tucker on what qualifies as anarchism instead of Goldman, Graeber, Kropotkin, or some John Clark. If he had done so, he would have found the following quote:

“This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.” – Benjamin Tucker

This is almost word-for-word a contradiction of Fleischmann’s position. In fact, the contradiction is so striking let me put both quotes on the screen.

Fleischmann says abolition of the state and voluntary associations is not enough to qualify as anarchism, Tucker says anarchism is abolition of the state and voluntary associations. It can’t get starker than that.

We are not only anarchists but the true heirs of Benjamin Tucker’s anarchism, an inheritance unjustly usurped by the Fleischmanns of the world. But as Tucker said “Light has a penetrating power that is irresistible, and is bound to make its way.”

For more information on this subject, please check out our video “Yes, Anarcho-Capitalists are Anarchists.”