Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:A.2.14 - Pourquoi le volontarisme n'est pas suffisant ?"
(début de traduction) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{traduction|15}} | ||
[[Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?]] | [[Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?]] | ||
{{faqanarAd}} | {{faqanarAd}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | Le '''[[volontarisme]]''' signifie que le fait d'intégrer une association devrait être un acte volontaire, dans le but de maximiser la [[liberté]]. Les anarchistes sont, bien évidemment, volontaristes et pensent que les individus ne peuvent développer, faire grandir et exprimer leur liberté qu'au sein d'associations libres, créées par un libre accord. Toutefois, il est évident que dans une société capitalise, le volontarisme en lui-même est insuffisant pour maximiser la liberté. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Le volontarisme implique la promesse, c'est-à -dire la liberté de prendre des décisions, et la promesse implique que les individus soient capables d'avoir un jugement indépendant et d'une délibération rationnelle. De plus, cela présuppose qu'ils peuvent évaluer et changer leurs actions et leurs relations. Cependant, les contrats dans un système capitaliste contredisent ces implications du volontarisme. Ainsi, même s'ils sont « volontaires » (bien que nous verrons dans la [[B.4 - comment le capitalisme affecte-t-il la liberté?|section B.4]] que cela n'est pas vraiment le cas), les contrats capitalistes résultent en un déni de liberté car les relations sociales de salaire-travail implique de promettre en échange d'un salaire. Et, comme le montre [[Carole Pateman]], « promettre d'obéir revient à nier, ou à limiter, à une plus ou moins grande échelle, la liberté et l'égalité des individus et leur habileté à exercer ces capacités [de jugement indépendant et de délibération rationnelle]. Promettre d'obéir c'est déclarer que, dans certaines situations, la personne qui fait la promesse n'est plus libre d'exercer ses capacités et de décider de ses propres acions, et n'est donc plus l'égale, mais la subordonnée. »<ref>« to promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate. »<br>[[Carole Pateman]], ''The Problem of Political Obligation'' (Le problème de l'obligation politique), p. 19.</ref> Ce qui fait que ceux qui obéissent ne prennent leurs propres décisions. Ainsi, dans une ralation [[hiérarchie|hiérarchique]], le postulat du volontarisme (que les individus soient capables de penser par eux-mêmes et soient autorisé(e)s à exprimer leur individualité et pendre leurs propres décisions) est violé puisque certains ont des responsablités et la plupart obéissent (voir aussi la [[FAQAnar:A.2.8 - Est-il possible d'être un anarchiste sans s'opposer à la hiérarchie ?|section A.2.8]]). Donc tout volontarisme qui génère des relations de subordination est, de par sa propre nature, incomplet et viole sa propre justification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. For if, as Rousseau put it, sovereignty, "for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented" neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a hiring contract. Rousseau famously argued that the "people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 266] Anarchists expand on this analysis. To paraphrase Rousseau: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free; but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when she signs her contract with her boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing but an order taker. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions in land, should impose laws on those who want to establish themselves there, and that he should only allow them to do so on condition that they accept his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I can still conceive . . . Would not this tyrannical act contain a double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that on the liberty of the inhabitants?" [Op. Cit., p. 316] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hence Proudhon's comment that "Man may be made by property a slave or a despot by turns." [What is Property?, p. 371] Little wonder we discover Bakunin rejecting "any contract with another individual on any footing but the utmost equality and reciprocity" as this would "alienate his [or her] freedom" and so would be a "a relationship of voluntary servitude with another individual." Anyone making such a contract in a free society (i.e. anarchist society) would be "devoid of any sense of personal dignity." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 68-9] Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination between its members. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination between its members. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." [Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 277] For similar reasons, anarchists (with the notable exception of Proudhon) opposed marriage as it turned women into "a bonded slave, who takes her master's name, her master's bread, her master's commands, and serves her master's passions . . . who can control no property, not even her own body, without his consent." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Sex Slavery", The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 94] While marriage, due to feminist agitation, in many countries has been reformed towards the anarchist ideal of a free union of equals, it still is based on the patriarchal principles anarchists like Goldman and de Cleyre identified and condemned (see section A.3.5 for more on feminism and anarchism). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to defend an individual's liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores (or takes for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are made and, moreover, ignores the social relationships created by them ("For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible to remain free." [Kropotkin, Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 305]). Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be based upon force, power, and authority, not liberty. This of course assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is not enough to create a society that maximises liberty. This is why anarchists think that voluntary association must be complemented by self-management (direct democracy) within these associations. For anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply self-management. Or, to use Proudhon's words, "as individualism is the primordial fact of humanity, so association is its complementary term." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 430] | ||
| + | |||
| + | To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private property (and so statism), those with property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate their authority. "Wealth is power, poverty is weakness," in the words of Albert Parsons. This means that under capitalism the much praised "freedom to choose" is extremely limited. It becomes, for the vast majority, the freedom to pick a master (under slavery, quipped Parsons, the master "selected . . . his own slaves. Under the wage slavery system the wage slave selects his master."). Under capitalism, Parsons stressed, "those disinherited of their natural rights must hire out and serve and obey the oppressing class or starve. There is no other alternative. Some things are priceless, chief among which are life and liberty. A freeman [or woman] is not for sale or hire." [Anarchism, p. 99 and p. 98] And why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty of others? The "liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of liberty. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We are prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ( Section A.2.11 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property owners and the propertyless). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Notes et références== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{source|http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca214}} | ||
Revision as of 21:31, 4 August 2010
| L'avancement de cette traduction est de 15%. |
Catégorie:En traduction Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?
Le volontarisme signifie que le fait d'intégrer une association devrait être un acte volontaire, dans le but de maximiser la liberté. Les anarchistes sont, bien évidemment, volontaristes et pensent que les individus ne peuvent développer, faire grandir et exprimer leur liberté qu'au sein d'associations libres, créées par un libre accord. Toutefois, il est évident que dans une société capitalise, le volontarisme en lui-même est insuffisant pour maximiser la liberté.
Le volontarisme implique la promesse, c'est-à -dire la liberté de prendre des décisions, et la promesse implique que les individus soient capables d'avoir un jugement indépendant et d'une délibération rationnelle. De plus, cela présuppose qu'ils peuvent évaluer et changer leurs actions et leurs relations. Cependant, les contrats dans un système capitaliste contredisent ces implications du volontarisme. Ainsi, même s'ils sont « volontaires » (bien que nous verrons dans la section B.4 que cela n'est pas vraiment le cas), les contrats capitalistes résultent en un déni de liberté car les relations sociales de salaire-travail implique de promettre en échange d'un salaire. Et, comme le montre Carole Pateman, « promettre d'obéir revient à nier, ou à limiter, à une plus ou moins grande échelle, la liberté et l'égalité des individus et leur habileté à exercer ces capacités [de jugement indépendant et de délibération rationnelle]. Promettre d'obéir c'est déclarer que, dans certaines situations, la personne qui fait la promesse n'est plus libre d'exercer ses capacités et de décider de ses propres acions, et n'est donc plus l'égale, mais la subordonnée. »[1] Ce qui fait que ceux qui obéissent ne prennent leurs propres décisions. Ainsi, dans une ralation hiérarchique, le postulat du volontarisme (que les individus soient capables de penser par eux-mêmes et soient autorisé(e)s à exprimer leur individualité et pendre leurs propres décisions) est violé puisque certains ont des responsablités et la plupart obéissent (voir aussi la section A.2.8). Donc tout volontarisme qui génère des relations de subordination est, de par sa propre nature, incomplet et viole sa propre justification.
This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. For if, as Rousseau put it, sovereignty, "for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented" neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a hiring contract. Rousseau famously argued that the "people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 266] Anarchists expand on this analysis. To paraphrase Rousseau:
Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free; but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when she signs her contract with her boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing but an order taker.
To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:
"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions in land, should impose laws on those who want to establish themselves there, and that he should only allow them to do so on condition that they accept his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I can still conceive . . . Would not this tyrannical act contain a double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that on the liberty of the inhabitants?" [Op. Cit., p. 316]
Hence Proudhon's comment that "Man may be made by property a slave or a despot by turns." [What is Property?, p. 371] Little wonder we discover Bakunin rejecting "any contract with another individual on any footing but the utmost equality and reciprocity" as this would "alienate his [or her] freedom" and so would be a "a relationship of voluntary servitude with another individual." Anyone making such a contract in a free society (i.e. anarchist society) would be "devoid of any sense of personal dignity." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 68-9] Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination between its members.
Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination between its members.
It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." [Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 277] For similar reasons, anarchists (with the notable exception of Proudhon) opposed marriage as it turned women into "a bonded slave, who takes her master's name, her master's bread, her master's commands, and serves her master's passions . . . who can control no property, not even her own body, without his consent." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Sex Slavery", The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 94] While marriage, due to feminist agitation, in many countries has been reformed towards the anarchist ideal of a free union of equals, it still is based on the patriarchal principles anarchists like Goldman and de Cleyre identified and condemned (see section A.3.5 for more on feminism and anarchism).
Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to defend an individual's liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores (or takes for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are made and, moreover, ignores the social relationships created by them ("For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible to remain free." [Kropotkin, Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 305]). Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be based upon force, power, and authority, not liberty. This of course assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is not enough to create a society that maximises liberty. This is why anarchists think that voluntary association must be complemented by self-management (direct democracy) within these associations. For anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply self-management. Or, to use Proudhon's words, "as individualism is the primordial fact of humanity, so association is its complementary term." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 430]
To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private property (and so statism), those with property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate their authority. "Wealth is power, poverty is weakness," in the words of Albert Parsons. This means that under capitalism the much praised "freedom to choose" is extremely limited. It becomes, for the vast majority, the freedom to pick a master (under slavery, quipped Parsons, the master "selected . . . his own slaves. Under the wage slavery system the wage slave selects his master."). Under capitalism, Parsons stressed, "those disinherited of their natural rights must hire out and serve and obey the oppressing class or starve. There is no other alternative. Some things are priceless, chief among which are life and liberty. A freeman [or woman] is not for sale or hire." [Anarchism, p. 99 and p. 98] And why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty of others? The "liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of liberty.
Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We are prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.
( Section A.2.11 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property owners and the propertyless).
Notes et références
- ↑ « to promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate. »
Carole Pateman, The Problem of Political Obligation (Le problème de l'obligation politique), p. 19.
| |
