FAQAnar:B.2 - Pourquoi les anarchistes sont contre l'État ?
Catégorie:Pourquoi les anarchistes s’opposent-ils au système actuel ?
Comme on l'a déjà noté (voir la section B.1), les anarchistes s'opposent à toutes les formes d'autorité hiérarchique. Historiquement, cependant, ils ont passé le plus clair de leur temps et de leur énergie à s'opposer en particulier à deux formes principales. Le premier est le capitalisme, l'autre, l'État. Ces deux formes d'autorité ont une relation de symbiose et ne peuvent pas être facilement séparées. Dans cette section, tout en expliquant pourquoi les anarchistes s'opposent à l'état, on devra nécessairement analyser la relation entre l'etat et le capitalisme.
Alors qu'est ce que l'etat ? Comme l'a dit Malatesta, les anarchistes "ont utilisé le mot État... pour désigner la somme totale des institutions politiques, législatives, judiciaires, militaires et financières à travers lequel la gestion de leurs propres affaires, le contrôle de leur comportement personnel, la responsabilité de leur sécurité personnelle, sont prises en dehors du peuple et confiée à d'autres qui, par usurpation ou par délégation, sont investis du pouvoir de faire des lois pour chacun et tout le monde, et à obliger les gens à les observer, et le cas échéant, par l'utilisation de la force de l'ordre"[1].
Il continue :
"Pour nous, les gouvernements [ou l'État] sont composés de tous les gouverneurs... Ceux qui ont le pouvoir de faire des lois réglementant les relations inter-humaines et de voir qu'ils sont mis en œuvre... [Et] qui ont le pouvoir, à un plus ou moindre degré, de tirer parti du pouvoir social, qui est le pouvoir physique, intellectuel et économique de l'ensemble de la communauté, afin d'obliger tout le monde à réaliser leurs désirs"[2].
Cela signifie que beaucoup, sinon la plupart, des anarchistes sont d'accord avec Randolph Bourne sur la caractérisation de l'état que la domination politico-militaire d'un certain territoire géographique par une élite au pouvoir (voir son « Fragment Inachevé sur l'État », dans Untimely Papers). A ce sujet Murray Bookchin écrit:
"Au minimum, l'État est un système professionnel de contrainte sociale... Ce n'est que lorsque la contrainte est institutionnalisée dans une forme professionnelle, systématique et organisée de contrôle social -... Avec le soutien d'un monopole de la violence - que nous pouvons correctement parler d'un État"[3].
Par conséquent, nous pouvons dire que, pour les anarchistes, l'État est marquée par trois choses:
- 1) Un "monopole de la violence" dans un territoire donné;
- 2) Cette violence ayant un nature institutionnelle, «professionnelle», et
- 3) Une nature hiérarchique, une centralisation du pouvoir et de l'initiative entre les mains de quelques-uns.
Of these three aspects, the last one (its centralised, hierarchical nature) is the most important simply because the concentration of power into the hands of the few ensures a division of society into government and governed (which necessitates the creation of a professional body to enforce that division). Without such a division, we would not need a monopoly of violence and so would simply have an association of equals, unmarked by power and hierarchy (such as exists in many stateless "primitive" tribes).
Some types of states, e.g. Communist and social-democratic ones, are directly involved not only in politico-military domination but also in economic domination via state ownership of the means of production; whereas in liberal democratic capitalist states, such ownership is in the hands of private individuals. In liberal democratic states, however, the mechanisms of politico-military domination are controlled by and for a corporate elite, and hence the large corporations are often considered to belong to a wider "state-complex."
As the state is the delegation of power into the hands of the few, it is obviously based on hierarchy. This delegation of power results in the elected people becoming isolated from the mass of people who elected them and outside of their control. In addition, as those elected are given power over a host of different issues and told to decide upon them, a bureaucracy soon develops around them to aid in their decision-making. However, this bureaucracy, due to its control of information and its permanency, soon has more power than the elected officials. This means that those who serve the people's (so-called) servant have more power than those they serve, just as the politician has more power than those who elected him. All forms of state-like (i.e. hierarchical) organisations inevitably spawn a bureaucracy about them. This bureaucracy soon becomes the de facto focal point of power in the structure, regardless of the official rules.
This marginalisation and disempowerment of ordinary people (and so the empowerment of a bureaucracy) is the key reason for anarchist opposition to the state. Such an arrangement ensures that the individual is disempowered, subject to bureaucratic, authoritarian rule which reduces the person to a object or a number, not a unique individual with hopes, dreams, thoughts and feelings. As Proudhon forcefully argued:
"To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so... To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolised, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown it all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 294]
Anarchists see the state, with its vast scope and control of deadly force, as the "ultimate" hierarchical structure, suffering from all the negative characteristics associated with authority described in the last section. "Any logical and straightforward theory of the State," argued Bakunin, "is essentially founded upon the principle of authority, that is the eminently theological, metaphysical, and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must at all times submit to the beneficent yoke of a wisdom and a justice imposed upon them, in some way or other, from above." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 142] Such a system of authority cannot help being centralised, hierarchical and bureaucratic in nature. And because of its centralised, hierarchical, and bureaucratic nature, the state becomes a great weight over society, restricting its growth and development and making popular control impossible. As Bakunin puts it:
"the so-called general interests of society supposedly represented by the State . . . [are] in reality . . . the general and permanent negation of the positive interests of the regions, communes, and associations, and a vast number of individuals subordinated to the State . . . [in which] all the best aspirations, all the living forces of a country, are sanctimoniously immolated and interred." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 207]
In the rest of this section we will discuss the state, its role, its impact on a society's freedom and who benefits from its existence. Kropotkin's classic essay, The State: It's Historic Role is recommended for further reading on this subject.
Notes et references
- ↑ Anarchy, p. 13
- ↑ Op. Cit., Pp. 15-16 - voir aussi Kropotkine sur l'État: son rôle historique, p. 10
- ↑ Remaking Society, p. 66
|