Why no anarcho-capitalism before the 1970s?

In Commerce and Coalitions, Ron Rogowski argued on pages 165 to 168 that socialism never evolved in the United States because of the enduring abundance of land and scarcity of labour. Whilst Rogowski is too timid about discussing race — for a start, the theories of Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin, and later Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson, are in no way inconsistent with division on the basis of race if ownership of production factors be divided thereby — he does offer quite reasonable explanations in terms of how labour loses from trade and becomes either timid or powerless except during falling trade.

One related point I thought of on reading Rogowski but which has not been discussed is why anarcho-capitalism evolved where and when it did. Since the Republican Revolution, anarcho-capitalism has been a highly influential ideology amongst the US ruling class, with Randolph Hohle arguing that anarcho-capitalist and allied writers use a code of:

“private” = “White”

“public” = “Black”

to justify their vision of a society without public services. (Although Hohle says this code developed only after the civil rights revolution of the middle 1960s, I feel that it probably dates back to at least the early Republic when free blacks, as I noted previously, became viewed as wholly deviant.)

Despite its influence, anarcho-capitalism has never been subject to detailed scholarly study. The critical question is why, given the benefits not having to pay taxes would have to the extremely rich, anarcho-capitalism only became an established ideology in the 1970s, and never evolved in Europe or Japan at all. Here, Rogowski can provide a very clear answer. Anarcho-capitalism is, by definition, a militant movement of the upper classes to remove the power of labour, and in its goal to eliminate the public sector is the direct opposite of socialist movements aiming to eliminate the private sector. By inverting what Commerce and Coalitions says about socialism, we can predict logically that anarcho-capitalism (or similar militant movements against democracy) will arise where(ever) capital benefits from expanding trade and labour does not, that is, where capital is abundant and labour scarce. In Rogowski’s terminology, anarcho-capitalism will arise in advanced economies with a high land:labour ratio. Under these conditions, capital and land gain from free trade, whilst labour sees its opportunities restricted and its incomes reduced. Thus class struggle is intense as capital and land seek to eliminate the power of groups opposed to their unlimited power by funding politicians so dedicated, and ultimately to destroy all possible sources of power of such groups. Under this condition, those who do not lie at the very bottom of society — lacking the resources to unite with those who do as their skills are devalued — will stigmatise those at the very bottom. Rogowski himself showed that this stigmatisation can be extremely powerful on page 85 of his 1974 Rational Legitimacy: A Theory of Political Support, and on page 157 he suggests that the probability of a coalition between lower classes with different stigmatisation states is likely to be very low if the groups lack combined economic power.

As I have discussed here, there were never any advanced economies with even a relatively high land:labour ratio at any point between the birth of Christ and about 1900. An undated file from the University of Michigan noted this at PS 489.1 (page 5):

“Abundance of Land and Capital, Scarcity of Labor (p. 32):

Who?

1. 1840: no one
2. 1914: US and Canada
3. [1991-: US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Arab Gulf States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Turkey (marginal)]”

Thus, before 1900 no state favourable to the development of strong and/or influential anarcho-capitalist type movements existed. Although Proudhon’s ideas as depicted by Marxist Left Review strikingly resemble anarcho-capitalism in many respects, if Rogowski be correct then Proudhon was planting an ideological seed onto the unfavourable soil of mid-nineteenth-century France.

In the developed countries of northwestern Europe, enduring abundance of labour meant that when trade expanded, enriched workers pressed for and gained more rights and a larger public sector. Additionally, labour did not oppose capital because both benefitted from trade, and this made capital compromise severely with labour’s opposing demands for the highest possible taxes and greatest regulation. This is even more emphatically true of later-developing East Asia.

In a labour-rich society, labour opposes capital only when capital is scarce. There capital becomes militant only during falling trade and is intensely protectionist. This militant capital will then support autarky with only the most restricted possible trade, a position entirely opposed to free-trading anarcho-capitalism. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, Marxian socialism was and is not explicitly pro-free trade. Thus one could theoretically imagine militant socialism arising in advanced, land-rich economies under falling trade, though history does not provide an example and there exist many reasons why this would not happen even if the falling trade were extremely prolonged. Thus, “no anarcho-capitalism in labour-rich societies” is almost certainly a more rigid rule than “no militant socialism in labour-scarce societies”.

The rule that there is no anarcho-capitalism in labour-abundant societies can also be extended to other forms of ruling class militancy like religious fundamentalism. This also first emerged in the United States after it became abundant in capital, notably with the second Ku Klux Klan, and re-emerged there after the postwar globalisation. It has been the dominant force in the Gulf monarchies since the pivotal oil crises of the 1970s. These movements argue, at least implicitly, that God’s law decrees a natural hierarchy based on non-class distinctions like race, gender or religion, and that this is a natural order for all human societies.