💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › the-age-old-question.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:14:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Age-Old Question
Author: Eric Fleischmann
Date: May 17th, 2022
Language: en
Topics: anarcho-capitalism, conservatism, libertarianism, left-libertarianism, anarchism, Benjamin Tucker, liberalism, C4SS
Source: Retrieved on 5/17/22 from https://c4ss.org/content/56712.

Eric Fleischmann

The Age-Old Question

Is anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism? The resounding cry from

anarchists of all stripes—including myself—is NO! The debate rages on,

but two questions are raised by this claim: why isn’t it anarchism and

if it isn’t anarchism then what is it? I believe the answers are:

because it fails to meet the deeper commitments of anarchism and is

actually a form of radical libertarianism. And this brings up the

further question: what then is the relationship between libertarianism

and anarchism? I will attempt to substantially elaborate on the former

response in order to lead to an open ended exploration of the latter.

First though, it bears mentioning that, for much of the world,

libertarian and anarchist are used more or less interchangeably.

‘Libertarian’ was first used in a political sense by anarcho-communist

Joseph Déjacque and remains in use as an inherently leftist idea in much

of the world outside of the United States. However, in 1955, Dean

Russell proposed that classical liberals abandon the public title of

liberal and advanced that “those of us who love liberty trade-mark and

reserve for our own . . . the good and honorable word ‘libertarian.’” So

libertarian in its common usage in the U.S. really just means, at least

at its core, liberal. And the meaning of liberalism can be found in its

etymological root, with Bettina Bien Greaves writing in the preface to

Ludwig von Mises’s Liberalism: In The Classical Tradition that “[t]he

term ‘liberalism,’ from the Latin ‘liber’ meaning ‘free’ referred

originally to the philosophy of freedom” and summing up its real-world

applications as represented by “the free market economy, limited

government and individual freedom.” Essentially: liberalism takes the

form of a belief in the essential liberty of the individual, the

real-world practice of which is the greatest possible minimization of

the state and the greatest possible maximization of the market. These

are therefore the basics of libertarianism.

Of course, liberalism now dominates the world in its corrupted,

hegemonic form of neoliberalism, but at its inception, as Kevin Carson

writes, “[t]he liberalism of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the other

classical political economists was very much a left-wing assault on the

entrenched economic privilege of the great Whig landed oligarchy and the

mercantilism of the moneyed classes” before primarily taking “on the

character of an apologetic doctrine in defense of the entrenched

interests of industrial capital.”[1] So while libertarianism has a

common origin with neoliberalism, it is certainly not the status quo and

can therefore be identified as this original radical essence of

liberalism brought to bear in the 20th and 21st century. Admittedly,

this is giving a lot more credit than is due to vulgar libertarians who,

as Carson accounts, “use the term ‘free market’ in an equivocal sense,”

seeming “to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next,

whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market

principles” and consequently become apologists for the status quo and

ruling elite, but Jason Lee Byas argues that libertarianism—despite its

misuses—is still fundamentally a radical form of liberalism and further

that “[t]o say that libertarians are radical liberals is to say more

than just that we are more extreme.” It means “taking an idea to its

roots, and applying that idea consistently.” Radical liberalism leads to

the conclusion that “although our interests are naturally aligned, they

are wildly at odds in the world around us. This unnatural disharmony

comes from the imposition of power and the way aggression feeds upon

aggression” and that though “[t]here is little adrenaline behind the

legislator’s vote, the bureaucrat’s checklist, or the policeman’s casual

stroll, . . . they are acts of war all the same. Throughout that

monotonous charge, the unknowing infantry’s supreme objective is always

the protection of political authority.” In turn, radical

libertarianism—radical radical liberalism—takes these observations

regarding power and violence and the aforementioned aspects of

individual freedom, limited government, and the free-market economy to

the conclusion of absolute individual sovereignty, zero government, and

everything being provided by a market. This is the vision of

anarcho-capitalism as described by thinkers like Murray Rothbard and

David Friedman, and it may sound like anarchism in the colloquial sense,

but the abolition of the state and voluntary association of a genuinely

free market is not enough to qualify as anarchism.

This may seem like an odd statement to make, as many definitions of

anarchism center on free association and zero government. Emma Goldman

explains anarchism from an anti-government standpoint as being “[t]he

philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by

man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence,

and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.” David

Graeber, from a ‘voluntary order’ perspective, concludes that “[t]he

easiest way to explain anarchism . . . is to say that it is a political

movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free society — and that

defines a ‘free society’ as one where humans only enter those kinds of

relations with one another that would not have to be enforced by the

constant threat of violence.” And Pyotr Kropotkin combines both types of

views in the definition of anarchism as “the name given to a principle

or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without

government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission

to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements

concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional,

freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also

for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of

a civilized being.” And if one chose not to read further than these

cherry-picked quotes, 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.

However, a deeper question arises: are these descriptions of what

anarchism is or rather a description of an end goal reached through

rigorous meeting of deeper commitments? The latter is believed by Byas,

who maintains that “anarchism . . . [is not] simply synonymous with

voluntary association and nothing more. Voluntary association is

necessary and non-negotiable, but the anarchist’s work is not over if

non-violent forms of domination persist.” As John Clark argues, the

“essence of anarchism” is not simply “the theoretical opposition to the

state, but the practical and theoretical struggle against domination,”

which “does not stop with a criticism of political organization” but

goes to the root of the thing in condemning “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."[2] Another, more

concise explanation might be found in the famous line by Noam Chomsky

that…

“[t]he core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that

power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate.

So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some

authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can’t prove it,

then it should be dismantled.”

And Byas explains that ancaps “often [forget] to emphasize . . . [this]

centrality of non-domination in the anarchist ethos.” In advocating for

an economy centered around private ownership of the means of

production—a socio-economic order that not only reproduces hierarchy but

came into existence through primitive accumulation and other forms of

violence like settler-colonialism and imperialism—fail to meet the

deeper commitments of seeking to abolish hierarchy and domination beyond

just that off the state, and so, while qualifying as radical

libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.

This thesis is contested by Roderick Long in his contribution on

libertarianism and anarchism to Brill’s Companion to Anarchism and

Philosophy, where he—though not an ancap himself—holds that

anarcho-capitalism does qualify as anarchism even if it considers “the

forms of domination in Clark’s list as legitimate, either in the weaker

sense of not being rights-violations and so not permissible targets of

forcible interference, or in the stronger sense of not being problematic

even in terms of private morality.” He presents—as I see it—two major

arguments: 1) North American individualist anarchism like that of

Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Voltraine De Cleyre, and Lysander

Spooner is considered a legitimate form of anarchism, and

“anarcho-capitalism is best understood [as] a subset of individualist

anarchism.”And furthermore, “[m]any of the features of

anarcho-capitalism to which social anarchists point as grounds for

exclusion from the anarchist ranks appear to be shared by individualist

anarchists”—in particular private defense agencies. 2) The system that

ancaps describe as ‘capitalism’ is not the existing statist economy but

rather an actually free market. And not only then does such a system

allow for non-capitalist projects such as mutual aid, cooperatives, and

communes but massive inequalities, parasitism, and monopolism are

“largely the product of state intervention rather than free markets, and

so should not be expected to feature in any realistic implementation of

anarcho-capitalists’ ideals, whatever the anarcho-capitalists themselves

expect.” Long only loosely addresses the issue of deeper commitments to

anti-hierarchy and non-domination, writing it off as a “strategy of

exclusion-by-definition.” I think this is a serious error, as it opens

the door to allowing reactionary values into the anarchist movement. Is

there nothing inherent in anarchism that rejects racism, misogyny,

homophobia, and other forms of bigotry? Long points to Pierre-Joseph

“Proudhon’s misogyny, anti-Semitism, and homophobia” but continued place

in anarchist canon as essentially proof that there is not—even if such a

rejection is good. But are we to view them as compatible or as errors in

the early development of the ideology? I believe the latter, and

Proudhon himself once said, “”I dream of a society where I will be

guillotined for being a conservative.”[3]

But moving on to the arguments that Long makes more substantially, I

actually agree that anarcho-capitalism is in some way descendent from

individualist anarchism but not because the former is a form of

anarchism but because the latter is a form of proto-libertarianism.

Individualist anarchism shares a “continuity with classical liberalism”

just as anarcho-capitalism does and they both advocate for the complete

reduction of the state and the expansion of the market into

everything—including law and defense. However, the 19th century

individualist anarchists went further to champion progressive social

values like, as Long outlines, “feminism, free love, antimilitarism, and

labor empowerment.” And their free market ideology is best understood

not simply as institutions like private defense agencies being

“conceived as . . . implemented” not in a “capitalistic context” but “an

anti-capitalistic one,” but further that an expansion of the free market

in all spheres will generate results favorable to those aforementioned

values and destructive to capitalism in general. Long contests this

belief, arguing that not only were some 19th century individualists (in

particular Spooner) not wholly opposed to interest, rent, and wage labor

per se but “just as Tucker expected and predicted that genuinely free

markets would undermine capitalist institutions, but did not make his

support for laissez-faire conditional on the accuracy of this

prediction” and “he saw the connection between [anarchism and the

undermining of capitalist exploitation] as causal rather than

definitional, and acknowledged that if he had to choose between

individual liberty and a more equitable distribution of wealth, he would

choose liberty.” Long cites two points in particular to back up this

assertion:

[Tucker’s] more succinct phrasing elsewhere: ‘Equality if we can get it,

but Liberty at any rate!’ [And how,] [w]hile opposing interest, Tucker

noted that he had “no other case against interest than that it cannot

appear (except sporadically) under free conditions,” and that he would

cease to oppose interest if he could be convinced “that interest can

persist where free competition prevails.”

Setting aside what I believe to be the anomalous views of Spooner, I

think using these as reasons to say Tucker (particularly as the

fountainhead of free market anti-capitalism) did not see the undermining

of exploitation as an essential part of his politics is a

misunderstanding of both of these sentiments.

The latter of these points can be best understood as a continuation of a

sentiment presented by Proudhon, who writes that he does not intend…

to forbid or suppress, by sovereign degree, ground rent and interest on

capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should

remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications,

restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally

and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of

reciprocity which I propose.

Here Proudhon is not defending interest or rent but rather acknowledging

that anarchism does not function in a prohibitory manner like statist

ideologies but rather creates a situation in which interest could exist

but probably would not. As Carson writes, drawing from Tucker’s own

analysis of the money monopoly, it is “the state’s licensing of banks,

capitalization requirements, and other market entry barriers enable

banks to charge a monopoly price for loans in the form of usurious

interest rates.” The admiration of liberty over equality in the former

part of Long’s above quote can, in turn, be best viewed not as an

endorsement of any system as long as it does not have a state but rather

as a sentiment found in the context of his opposition to state

socialism. Despite self-describing as a socialist, Tucker was vehemently

opposed to its statist form, writing, “there is no half-way house

between State Socialism and Anarchism” and describing the former as “the

doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the

government, regardless of individual choice.” It is in this opposition

that Tucker calls for liberty over equality, believing that ultimately

the first would lead to the second but opposing any ideology—like state

socialism—that held its priorities the other way around as it would

never truly establish freedom or equality. This is how we should

understand James J. Martin’s account of Tucker writing in his old age

that “Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of

Socialism or Communism;” not as an endorsement of capitalism that, as

Susan L. Brown rationalizes, provides “the shift further illuminated in

the 1970s by anarcho-capitalists” but the bitter words of a committed

anarchist who watched the rise of the authoritarian-statist USSR in the

last 15 or so years of his life.[4] So while certainly the 19th century

individualist anarchists were not willing to give up their entire

ideology because some of the outcomes might not create as much equality

and liberation as they thought, this does not mean that one can do away

with these egalitarian and and liberatory end goals—a necessary process

if anarcho-capitalism is to be brought into the anarchist canon.

And even admitting a libertarian (as opposed to anarchist) continuity

between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, I would also

like to make a strategic argument about to whom the heritage of

individualist anarchism belongs. Charles Johnson accounts how the debate

between ancaps and social anarchists over the ownership of this heritage

can be deeply disingenuous, with ancaps obscuring and neglecting “the

socialistic bite of the individualist understanding of class, privilege,

and exploitation” and social anarchists cutting “a lot of corners in

explaining the individualists’ positions” in order “to make them seem

significantly less propertarian, and more friendly towards

collectivistic and communistic socialism, than they actually were.” And

furthermore, he points out that individualist anarchists “are still

about and hardly need a bunch of anarcho-capitalists and social

anarchists to do the talking for us.” Johnson says he doesn’t “have much

of a dog in the fight, except insofar as it gets a bit tiresome watching

the two bicker over the individualist tendency within the movement as if

they were arguing over the contents of their dead grandmother’s will,”

but I think we as contemporary individualist anarchists still fighting

for both free markets and an end to capitalist exploitation need to

assert that said inheritance as our birthright. Right-wingers have

attempted to claim our tradition before; the French proto-fascist group

Cerele Proudhon attempted to selectively draw from Proudhon’s critique

of statist democracy to justify vicious nationalism. Tucker writes that…

[o]ne of the methods of propagandism practised by these agitators is the

attempt to enroll among their apostles all the great dead who, if

living, would look with scorn upon their ways and works. Every great

writer who has criticised democracy and who, being in his grave, cannot

enter protest, is listed as a royalist, a nationalist, and an

anti-Dreyfusard. Chief among these helpless victims is the foremost of

all Anarchists, to whom these impudent young rascals constantly refer as

notre grand Proudhon. Indeed, they have formed a Cerele Proudhon, which

publishes a bi-monthly review under the title, Cahiers du Cerele

Proudhon.

We should take heed from this historical anti-reactionary stance by

Tucker and, instead of becoming awkward apologists for

anarcho-capitalism, should take on the legacy of 19th century

individualist anarchism ourselves. As I said at the start, this is more

of a strategic claim than a purely factual one, but I do not think that

detracts from its importance when so many ancaps and other

right-libertarians are falling prey to the allure of fascism,

monarchism, white nationalism, and other forms of reactionary

authoritarianism.

This final point is what leads me to critique the idea that ancaps

should be accepted as anarchists on the basis that what they call

capitalism is not the existing system but a truly free market and that

consistent application of free market principles would lead to a world

very dissimilar to the present day economy. Anna Morgenstern believes

that if ancaps “genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are

anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they

want to claim they are.” This is because in the absence of the state

“the cost of protecting property rises dramatically as the amount of

property owned increases;” “without a state-protected banking/financial

system, accumulating endless high profits is well nigh impossible;” and

“under anarchism, such a thing as ‘intellectual property’ wouldn’t

exist, so any business model that relies on patents and copyrights to

make money would not exist either.” This would in turn make “mass

accumulation and concentration of capital . . . impossible;” “[w]ithout

concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible;” and “[w]ithout

wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as

‘capitalism.’” And there are certainly ancaps that advocate for a

genuinely free market—they often choose to describe themselves as

voluntaryists—even as it clashes against traditional capitalist

principles; in particular, Karl Hess and Rothbard during his time allied

with the New Left come to mind. The former admits (and is echoed at

least at one point by the latter) that…

much of that property [which now is called private] is stolen. Much is

of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral,

coercive state system which has condoned, built on, and profited from

slavery; has expanded through and exploited a brutal and aggressive

imperial and colonial foreign policy, and continues to hold the people

in a roughly serf-master relationship to political-economic power

concentrations.

But the aforementioned vulgar libertarianism rears its ugly head again

and again with manyancaps defending the existing system (minus the most

obvious elements of statism) without looking into its violent framework

of white supremacy, patriarchy, settler-colonialism, imperialism, etc.

(that, it should be noted, do rely fundamentally on the state to be

perpetuated). And because this backdrop of horrific violence is required

for the existing features of capitalism—like wage labor, large-scale

private property, and immense wealth inequality—to continue, said

structure is assumed by vulgar ancaps to be essentially what a free

market would look like; and they therefore find themselves defending

these monstrous systems.

Long admits that ancaps “are likelier to endorse hierarchical features

of existing economies,” but the problem is much more severe than that.

This reasoning—alongside a desire to appeal to the white middle-class in

the United States—led Rothbard and Lew Rockwell to conceptualize the

ideology of paleoconservatism. This backward ideology follows Rockwell’s

agreement with conservatives that…

political freedom is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the

good society. . . . Neither is it sufficient for the free society. We

also need social institutions and standards that encourage public

virtue, and protect the individual from the State.

This leads to him to a number of principles like:

VII. The egalitarian ethic is morally reprehensible and destructive of

private property and social authority.

VIII. Social authority, as embodied in the family, church, community,

and other intermediating institutions, as helping protect the individual

from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the

Judeo-Christian tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social

order.

And so ultimately, as Tom Bagwell explains, paleolibertarians place

“heavy emphasis on nationalism and closed borders keeping their Austrian

economic system contained within their nation-state. They also place

heavy emphasis on racial and cultural identity particularly . . .

arguing that right-libertarian economics only works among whites of

European descent and that European and North American states should be

kept largely or exclusively [white] (European).” And it is exactly this

colonial, racialized, chauvinistic, logic that has led Hans-Herman Hoppe

to argue—by taking Rockwell’s above ideas to the absolute extreme—that

“contemporary libertarianism can be characterized . . . as theory and

theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even most of the

Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology

without theory” and that therefore these two movements should unify on

some level in opposition to egalitarianism, social justice, and other

‘cultural Marxist’ ideas and institutions in favor of an

ultraconservative, ethnocentric society based on Eurocentric ideas of

hierarchical social order. This type of thinking is a marked trend in

hubs of anarcho-capitalist thought. Look at the article “Do White People

Have A Future?”from lewrockwell.com that calls for white people to arm

themselves against “immigrant invaders” and warns that “white societies

will disappear in the emerging barbarism;” or the piece “For a New

Libertarian” from the head of the Mises Institute—where Hoppe is a

senior fellow—that lauds “blood and soil and God and nation” and “elite

families;” or the mods of the subreddit r/anarcho_capitalism admitting

to embracing “monarchism, conservatism, AuthCapism, Christian

Capitalism, National Socialism” because “it’s inevitable” and they are

no longer “larping as anarchists;” or Liberty Hangout publicly promoting

Catholic theocracy and Holocaust denialism. And even as well meaning

right-libertarians struggle to maintain the false neutrality of

thinness, former ancaps like Stefan Molyneux and Christopher Cantwell

have turned toward explicit white nationalism. These are all natural

outcomes of defending the horrifying ‘package deal’ of capitalism and

almost all other present systems of oppression—from white supremacy to

patriarchy and beyond.

So what does this conclusion mean for someone (like myself) who

identifies as both an anarchist and a left-libertarian? Since

libertarianism has been identified as an ideology based fundamentally

not on anti-hierarchy and non-domination but on the minimization of

government and maximization of market and therefore distinct from

anarchism, can there ever be principled overlap between the two? To

answer this, one should observe that a characteristic difference between

left-libertarians and right- to far-right libertarians is the latter’s

commitment to a progressive and liberatory thickness. Thickness is, as

defined by Nathan Goodman, “any broadening of libertarian concerns

beyond overt aggression and state power to concern about what cultural

and social conditions are most conducive to liberty.” While many

right-libertarians like Walter Block try to avoid the problem by

claiming a false neutrality or ‘thinness’ and far-right libertarians

like the aforementioned Rockwell and Hoppe see this as an opening for

their reactionary social order, it leads left-libertarians to being

committed to not only limited-to-zero government, individual

sovereignty, and absolutely free markets but also—just like the 19th

century individualist anarchists—values and ideologies, as outlined by

Johnson, like “feminism, anti-racism, gay liberation,

counterculturalism, labor organizing, mutual aid, and environmentalism.”

And these are not just personal values tacked onto an anarcho-capitalist

framework but rather necessary for and entailed by its principled

application. Johnson argues, for example, that “rejecting these ideas,

practices, or projects would be logically compatible with

libertarianism, [but] their success might be important or even causally

necessary for libertarianism to get much purchase in an existing statist

society, or for a future free society to emerge from statism without

widespread poverty or social conflict, or for a future free society to

sustain itself against aggressive statist neighbors, the threat of civil

war, or an internal collapse back into statism.” He holds in particular

that wealth inequality needs to be addressed “with voluntary

anti-poverty measures” because “[e]ven a totally free society in which a

small class of tycoons own the overwhelming majority of the wealth, and

the vast majority of the population own almost nothing is unlikely to

remain free for long.” Or take Cathy Reisenwitz, who asserts that

libertarians should incorporate sex-positive feminism into their

thinking because it “seeks to destroy the judgment and shame which keep

people from being able to fully enjoy sex, or a lack of sex, or anything

in between” and “[l]ibertarianism should seek to destroy the judgment

and shame which keep people from being able to fully enjoy any kind of

peaceful, voluntary exchange. In this way, it will fully engage in

creating a world which allows the greatest amount of peaceful, voluntary

exchange possible.” And furthermore, left-libertarians, according to

Carson, seek to “demonstrate the relevance and usefulness of free market

thought for addressing the concerns of today’s Left” such as racism,

wealth inequality, landlordism, and ultimately capitalism in its

entirety. Look at the points made by Morgenstern above about the

impossibility of wealth accumulation and consequently wage labor in a

genuinely free market, or consider Carson’s argument that the “outcomes

of free market competition in socializing progress would result in a

society resembling not the anarcho-capitalist vision of a world owned by

the Koch brothers and Halliburton, so much as Marx’s vision of a

communist society.” Ultimately, left-libertarianism—when it is taken to

the extreme of total government abolition and totalizing free(d)

markets—meets the criteria for radical libertarianism but also holds the

same anti-domination and anti-hierarchy commitments of anarchism. This

means that left-libertarian anarchists can be properly described as

anarchists (and even draw upon ancap thinkers like David Friedman,

Rothbard, etc. as radical libertarians) without requiring

anarcho-capitalism to be included under the ideological umbrella as well

[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy accounts that “[t]hough not

all scholars agree on the meaning of the term, ‘neoliberalism’ is now

generally thought to label the philosophical view that a society’s

political and economic institutions should be robustly liberal and

capitalist, but supplemented by a constitutionally limited democracy and

a modest welfare state.” However, Carson espouses that in reality a

“structural model of farming out government functions to private

capital, at public expense and with guaranteed private profit, and

within a web of state-enforced monopolies and legal protections, is at

the heart of what’s called ‘free market reform’ under neoliberalism.”

Not to mention the use of the welfare state in the U.S. as a form of

human regulation which, as suggested by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A.

Cloward, expands during times of civil disorder and retracting when the

danger to the status quo has passed; and how all of this is tied in a

nice package of imposing U.S. interests on the rest of the world through

imperialism and neocolonialism as well economic globalization that

Carson effectively argues is also the product of state intervention.

[2] This quote is taken from its reproduction in Roderick Long’s article

on libertarianism and anarchism.

[3] It’s unclear where this quote comes from originally but it is cited

often.

[4] See Brown’s “The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The

Anarcho-Capitalist View” in Meanings of the Market in Western Culture.