Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:A.1.4 - Les Anarchistes sont-ils socialistes ?"

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{traduction}}
 
{{traduction}}
 +
 +
{{faqanarA}}
  
 
== A.1.4 - Les anarchistes sont-ils socialistes ? ==
 
== A.1.4 - Les anarchistes sont-ils socialistes ? ==
  
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]
+
Oui. Toutes les branches de l'anarchisme sont opposées au capitalisme, parce que le capitalisme est basé sur l'oppression et l'exploitation (voir les sections [[FAQAnar:B_-_Pourquoi_les_anarchistes_s%27opposent_au_syst%C3%A9me_actuel_%3F|B]] et [[FAQAnar:C_-_Quels_sont_les_mythes_des_sciences_%C3%A9conomiques_capitalistes_%3F|C]]). Les anarchistes rejettent la "notion que les hommes ne peuvent pas travailler ensemble sans qu'ils aient un chef~ (driving-master) qui prenne un pourcentage de leur produit" et pensent que dans une société anarchiste "les vrais travailleurs se réguleront eux-mêmes, décideront de quand, où et comment les choses devraient être faites." Par là même, les travailleurs seront libres "du terrible esclavage du capitalisme."<ref>[[Voltairine de Cleyre]], "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p.75 and p.79</ref>
 +
 
 +
(Nous devons souligner ici que les anarchistes sont opposés à toute forme économique basé sur la domination et l'exploitation, y comprus le féodalisme, le "socialisme" à la sauce Soviet - mieux nommé "capitalisme d'état" -, esclavage etc. Nous nous concentrons sur le capitalisme, parce que c'est ce qui domine le monde actuellement).
 +
 
 +
Les individualistes comme [[Benjamin Tucker]] avec des anarchistes sociaux comme [[Proudhon]] et [[Bakounine]] se disaient "socialistes". Ils le faisaient, parce que, comme le disait [[Kropotkine]] dans son essai classique _"Modern Science and Anarchism"_, "[aussi] longtemps que le Socialisme était compris dans son sens global, générique, et vrai - comme un effort pour abolir l'exploitation du travail par le capital - les Anarchistes marchaient main dans la main avec les Socialistes de ce temps." <ref>Evolution and Encironment, p.81</ref> Ou, selon les termes de Tucker, "la revendication de fond du socialisme [est] que le travail doit être en possession de son propriétaire", une revendication sur laquelle "les deux ecoles du Socialisme à travers [...] le socialisme d'état et l'anarchisme" sont d'accord.<ref>The Anarchist Reader, p.144</ref> De là, le mot "socialiste" était originellement défini pour inclure "tout ceux qui croyaient dans le droit individuel de posséder ce qu'il ou elle produisait"<ref>[[Lance Klafta]] "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism", in Anarchy : A journal of Desire Armed, no. 34</ref> Cette opposition à l'exploitation (ou _usury_) est partagée par tout les vrais anarchistes et les place sous la bannière socialiste.
  
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).
+
Pour la plupart des socialistes, "la seule garantie de ne pas se faire voler le fruit de ton travail est de posséder ton instrument de travail."<ref>[[Peter Kropotkine]], The Conquest of Bread, p.145</ref> Pour ces raisons Proudhon, par exemple, supportait les coopératives de travailleur, où "chaque employé dans l'association [...] possède une partie indivisible de la propriété de la compagnie" parce que par "la participation dans les pertes et les gains [...] la force collective cesse de devenir une source de profit pour un petit nombre de manager: cela devient la propriété de tous les travailleurs."<ref>The General Idea of the Revolution, p.222 et 223</ref> ...
  
Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.
+
----
  
For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).
+
Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).
  
 
Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]
 
Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]

Revision as of 15:12, 29 July 2007