Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:A.2.10 - Qu'est-ce que la suppression de la hiérarchie signifiera et amènera ?"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{traduction| | + | {{traduction|30}} |
[[Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?]] | [[Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?]] | ||
{{faqanarAd}} | {{faqanarAd}} | ||
| − | + | La création d'une nouvelle société basée sur des organisations libertaires aura des effets incalculables sur la vie de tous les jours. L'autonomisation de millions d'individus transformera la société d'une façon que nous pouvons difficilement appréhender. | |
| − | + | Cependant, beaucoup considèrent ces formes d'organisation irréalistes et condamnées à échouer. Les anarchistes répondent à ceux qui prétendent que des organisations confédérales et anti-autoritaires entraîneraient la confusion et la désunion, que les formes d'organisation étatiques, centralisées et hiérarchiques créent l'indifférence plutôt que l'implication, la cruauté plutôt que la solidarité, l'uniformité plutôt que l'unité, et privilégient les élites plutôt que de promouvoir l'[[égalité]]. Pire, de telles organisations détruisent les initiatives individuelles et écrasent les actions indépendantes et la pensée critique (pour approfondir la question de la [[hiérarchie]], voir la [[FAQAnar:B.1 - Pourquoi les anarchistes sont opposés à l'autorité et à la hiérarchie ?|section B.1]]). | |
| + | |||
| + | La preuve que les sociétés libertaires fonctionnent tout en étant (et en promouvant) la [[liberté]] a été apportée par le mouvement anarchiste espagnol pendant la [[Révolution espagnole]]. Fenner Brockway, secrétaire du Parti Travailliste Indépendant Britannique, lors de sa visite à Barcelone en [[1936]], nota que : | ||
| + | « la grande solidarité qui existait entre les Anarchistes était due au fait que chaque individu comptait sur sa propre force et ne dépendait pas d'un quelconque leadership [...]. Les organisations doivent, pour être couronnées de succès, être combinées avec des individus libres penseurs ; pas une masse, mais des individus libres. »<ref>Fenner Brockway, cité par [[Rudolf Rocker]], ''Anarcho-syndicalism'' (''L'anarcho-syndicalisme''), p.67f.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Comme nous l'avons déjà montré auparavant, les structures centralisées et hiérarchiques restreignent la liberté. Comme le notait [[Proudhon]] : « Le système centralisateur est très beau de grandeur, de simplicité et de développement ; il n'y manque qu'une chose, c'est que l'homme ne s'y appartient plus, ne s'y sent pas, n'y vit pas, n'y est de rien. »<ref>[[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]], ''Théorie de l'impôt'', p. 234. [http://books.google.fr/books?id=Du08AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=proudhon+th%C3%A9orie+de+l%27imp%C3%B4t&source=bl&ots=ltvrxwnXa0&sig=7k9rIgD2pyNlbO1jzcB6uC4ukpU&hl=fr&ei=UwbSS72BJsye_gb1l6nJDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false À lire sur Google livres].<br> Cette phrase est aussi citée par [[Martin Buber]] dans son ouvrage ''Paths in Utopia'' (''Les voies de l'utopie''), p. 33 ([http://books.google.fr/books?id=MXGSnCcRaUwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=paths+of+utopia&source=bl&ots=wL0hc6PcsH&sig=gQZDHQdtIUPR-SzzKLVADEbt_V4&hl=fr&ei=eAXSS97MG8rD_gbMqbC_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false à lire sur Google livres]) : <br> | ||
| + | « the centralist system is all very well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all. »</ref> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work. Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in the street. As Bob Black puts it, "[i]f you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life." ["The Libertarian as Conservative," The Abolition of Work and other essays, pp. 147-8] | The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work. Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in the street. As Bob Black puts it, "[i]f you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life." ["The Libertarian as Conservative," The Abolition of Work and other essays, pp. 147-8] | ||
| Line 20: | Line 24: | ||
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy, Thesis 95] | Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy, Thesis 95] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Notes et références== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 21:02, 23 April 2010
| L'avancement de cette traduction est de 30%. |
Catégorie:En traduction Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?
La création d'une nouvelle société basée sur des organisations libertaires aura des effets incalculables sur la vie de tous les jours. L'autonomisation de millions d'individus transformera la société d'une façon que nous pouvons difficilement appréhender.
Cependant, beaucoup considèrent ces formes d'organisation irréalistes et condamnées à échouer. Les anarchistes répondent à ceux qui prétendent que des organisations confédérales et anti-autoritaires entraîneraient la confusion et la désunion, que les formes d'organisation étatiques, centralisées et hiérarchiques créent l'indifférence plutôt que l'implication, la cruauté plutôt que la solidarité, l'uniformité plutôt que l'unité, et privilégient les élites plutôt que de promouvoir l'égalité. Pire, de telles organisations détruisent les initiatives individuelles et écrasent les actions indépendantes et la pensée critique (pour approfondir la question de la hiérarchie, voir la section B.1).
La preuve que les sociétés libertaires fonctionnent tout en étant (et en promouvant) la liberté a été apportée par le mouvement anarchiste espagnol pendant la Révolution espagnole. Fenner Brockway, secrétaire du Parti Travailliste Indépendant Britannique, lors de sa visite à Barcelone en 1936, nota que : « la grande solidarité qui existait entre les Anarchistes était due au fait que chaque individu comptait sur sa propre force et ne dépendait pas d'un quelconque leadership [...]. Les organisations doivent, pour être couronnées de succès, être combinées avec des individus libres penseurs ; pas une masse, mais des individus libres. »[1]
Comme nous l'avons déjà montré auparavant, les structures centralisées et hiérarchiques restreignent la liberté. Comme le notait Proudhon : « Le système centralisateur est très beau de grandeur, de simplicité et de développement ; il n'y manque qu'une chose, c'est que l'homme ne s'y appartient plus, ne s'y sent pas, n'y vit pas, n'y est de rien. »[2]
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work. Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in the street. As Bob Black puts it, "[i]f you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life." ["The Libertarian as Conservative," The Abolition of Work and other essays, pp. 147-8]
This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a massive transformation in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and society, they can ensure the full development of their individual capacities.
With the free participation of all in social life, we would quickly see the end of inequality and injustice. Rather than people existing to make ends meet and being used to increase the wealth and power of the few as under capitalism, the end of hierarchy would see (to quote Kropotkin) "the well-being of all" and it is "high time for the worker to assert his [or her] right to the common inheritance, and to enter into possession of it." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 35 and p. 44] For only taking possession of the means of life (workplaces, housing, the land, etc.) can ensure "liberty and justice, for liberty and justice are not decreed but are the result of economic independence. They spring from the fact that the individual is able to live without depending on a master, and to enjoy . . . the product of his [or her] toil." [Ricardo Flores Magon, Land and Liberty, p. 62] Therefore liberty requires the abolition of capitalist private property rights in favour of "use rights." (see section B.3 for more details). Ironically, the "abolition of property will free the people from homelessness and nonpossession." [Max Baginski, "Without Government," Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, p. 11] Thus anarchism promises "both requisites of happiness -- liberty and wealth." In anarchy, "mankind will live in freedom and in comfort." [Benjamin Tucker, Why I am an Anarchist, p. 135 and p. 136]
Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of people enslaved by hierarchy.
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy, Thesis 95]
Notes et références
- ↑ Fenner Brockway, cité par Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism (L'anarcho-syndicalisme), p.67f.
- ↑ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Théorie de l'impôt, p. 234. À lire sur Google livres.
Cette phrase est aussi citée par Martin Buber dans son ouvrage Paths in Utopia (Les voies de l'utopie), p. 33 (à lire sur Google livres) :
« the centralist system is all very well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all. »
