A Radical Failure:
A Review of Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism
Cathal Liam McFee
Black Oak Presents
Summer 2007

One need go no further than the title of this book to begin to see some of its inner contradictions. Radicals for Capitalism is inaccurate in at least two ways. First, the underlying theme, or perhaps tension would be more accurate, in the book is between "radicalism" and "pragmatism" within the libertarian movement and which should dominate (with the author coming out in the latter camp). Second, serious differences of opinion exist within the libertarian movement as to the definition of capitalism.

One group of radicals (grouped around the late Samuel Edward Konkin, and calling themselves "Agorists" or left-wing Rothbardians) argue that capitalism is impossible without the state, and that capitalists depend upon the state to regulate smaller competitors out of business. These radicals refer to themselves as "free market anti-capitalists". So, radicals they are, but not on behalf of capitalism. No, more likely, the pragmatists in the think tanks in Washington have made their peace with a well-regulated capitalism in harmony with an intrusive state.

Furthermore, this history is not all that "freewheeling," as the subtitle claims. It is rather plodding at points. The truth is, there is a great deal of information to relate, given the fact that no one has attempted a book of this sort before. Doherty chose a daunting task for himself, and it will fall to other authors to fill in some of the gaps and give a more detailed portrait of some of the individuals, groups, and events of which Doherty only manages to offer brief sketches.

It is problematic and indicative of his sympathy with the pragmatists that Doherty chooses to begin the book with a discussion of the Cato Institute's intellectually―and ideologically―impaired plan for saving Social Security. No greater artifact of the New Deal exists in this nation, and any libertarian worth his stripe would like to see it destroyed root and branch―not cosmetically patched so that it might survive into a new century. And, quite frankly, there is nothing "libertarian" about telling citizens that their money will still be taken from them without their choice, but that they are now "free" to direct some of it to the vultures on the bond market. The old Tuckerites, God bless them, would find such a choice abhorrent.

Given the current predicament in which this country finds itself―i.e., the loss of liberty at home as a direct result of fighting an unending "war on terror" abroad―this book could not have come at a better time. It is too bad he devotes so little time to what must be one of the central features of any libertarian (with or without the capital L) movement: opposition to the state's war making power. As Randolph Bourne so brilliantly and correctly put it, "war is the health of the State." War, in other words, is what the state does best, it is the state's raison d'etre. For, make no mistake, a war abroad will always be accompanied by a war at home, a war against dissent and any opposition to the state's authority. A nation cannot be a republic at home and an empire abroad.

Sooner or later, and probably far sooner than anyone would believe, one of the costs of war are the freedoms for which the war was supposedly fought. The libertarian opposition to war (especially imperialist state-building adventures like the Iraq War) can be stated simply and succinctly: One cannot impose liberty. No number of soldiers or military equipment can deliver freedom. People have to rise up and seize liberty for themselves. The state only gets in the way of that.

If one meets a libertarian who says that he wants to reduce the role of government down to almost nothing other than its "legitimate" war making and law-enforcing role, then one has met a libertarian with some dangerous delusions. Once one has accepted the state's monopoly on "legitimate" violence and force, one has already lost most of the battle. How, then, will one stop the state's encroachment into every other sphere of life and liberty? If the state can, with near-complete impunity, kill you, or force you to don a uniform and go off and kill others, then why can that state not tell you what drugs you can take, whom you may marry, and what sort of sexual acts in which you can engage with that individual (or any others)?

I would like one of the pro-war talking heads from the Cato Institute to answer those questions. If this aspect of the libertarian movement interests you, as it does me, unfortunately this is not the book to read to find out about it. On this issue, as with so many others, the author sides with the pragmatists. In an era in which we have witnessed startling growth in the scale of the state's war making capacity, and the increasing abuse of the Federal government's new powers in fighting the war on terror, such a choice on the part of any libertarian is criminal.

As an occasionally fascinating account of the last half-century of the libertarian movement, this book is unparalleled and worth reading. But, as far as the future of that movement is concerned, the pragmatists, whose role the author more often than not credits for the movement's success, offer little hope for those who truly value liberty.

Cathal Liam McFee is a Catholic, anarchist, and a science fiction writer
living in Bloomington, Indiana.  He dedicates this essay to Lara, who first showed
him some of these words; and to Greg and Carrie, who have always been willing to listen.

Reproduction of material from any original Blackoakmedia.org pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2007 Black Oak Media