FAQAnar:F.3.1 - Pourquoi la négligence vis-à -vis de l'égalité est-elle si importante ?
L'avancement de cette traduction est de 10%. |
Catégorie:En traduction Simplement parce une négligence vis-à -vis de l'égalité entraîne vite la fin de la liberté pour la majorité, étant niée de plusieurs façons importantes. La plupart des "anarcho"-capitalistes et des libertariens nient (ou au mieux, ignorent) le pouvoir du marché. Rothbard, par exemple, affirme que le pouvoir économique n'existe pas en régime capitaliste ; ce que les gens appellent le « pouvoir économique » « n’est donc que le Droit, en toute liberté, de refuser de conclure un échange[1] »
Cependant, le fait est qu'il y a des centres de pouvoir substantiels dans la société (tels que la source du pouvoir hiérarchique et les relations sociales autoritaires) qui ne dépendent pas de l'État. Comme le dit Élisée Reclus, « le pouvoir des rois et des empereurs est limité, celui de la richesse ne l'est point. Le dollar est le maître des maîtres.[2] » La richesse est donc une source de pouvoir, puisque « la chose essentielle » sous le capitalisme « est de s'entraîner à poursuivre un gain monétaire, dans le but de commander les autres au moyen de l'omnipotence d'argent. Notre pouvoir augmente dans la proportion directe à nos ressources économiques[3]. » Ainsi la tromperie centrale de l'"anarcho"-capitalisme est la supposition (non-déclarée) que les différents acteurs au sein d'une économie auront un pouvoir égal. Cette supposition a été remarquée par nombres de lecteurs de leurs ouvrages. Par exemple, Peter Marshall remarque que les « "anarcho-capitalistes" comme Rothbard supposent que les individus auront un pouvoir égal de marchander dans une société [capitaliste] fondée sur le marché[4]. » George Walford le remarqua également dans son commentaire du livre Vers une société sans État de David Friedman : "anarcho"-capitaliste
« La propriété privée envisagée par les anarcho-capitalistes sera très différente de celle que l'on connaît. C'est à peine aller trop loin que de dire que tant que l'une est mauvaise, l'autre sera meilleure. Dans une société anarcho-capitaliste, il n'y aura plus d'assurance nationale, plus de Sécurité Sociale, plus de service de soins nationaux, et pas même quelque chose qui ressemblerait aux Poors Laws[5] ; il n'y aura pas du tout de réseaux de sécurité publique. Ce sera une société rigoureusement compétitive : travaille, mendie ou meurt. Tout en lisant, on apprend que chaque individu devra acheter, personnellement, tous les biens et services qu'il désire, non seulement la nourriture, les vêtements et le logement, mais également l'éducation, la médecine, l'hygiène, la justice, la police, toutes les formes de sécurité et d'assurance, même la permission d'utiliser les rues (car elles seront aussi possédées par des agents privés), tout en lisant cela, une caractéristique émerge : tout le monde aura assez d'argent pour acheter toutes ces choses.
« There are no public casualty wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system but no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to buy the services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much more than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over others.
« No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no machinery for restraining competition (for this would need to exercise authority over the competitors and it is an anarcho- capitalist society) competition would not be carried to the point where anybody actually suffered from it. While proclaiming their system to be a competitive one, in which private interest rules unchecked, they show it operating as a co-operative one, in which no person or group profits at the cost of another[6]. »
This assumption of (relative) equality comes to the fore in Murray Rothbard's "Homesteading" concept of property (discussed in section F.4.1). "Homesteading" paints a picture of individuals and families going into the wilderness to make a home for themselves, fighting against the elements and so forth. It does not invoke the idea of transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people or a population without land, resources and selling their labour to others. Rothbard as noted argued that economic power does not exist (at least under capitalism, as we saw in section F.1 he does make -- highly illogical -- exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman's example of a pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty "defence" firm coming to an agreement (see section F.6.3) implicitly assumes that the firms have equal bargaining powers and resources -- if not, then the bargaining process would be very one-sided and the smaller company would think twice before taking on the larger one in battle (the likely outcome if they cannot come to an agreement on this issue) and so compromise.
However, the right-"libertarian" denial of market power is unsurprising. The "necessity, not the redundancy, of the assumption about natural equality is required "if the inherent problems of contract theory are not to become too obvious." If some individuals are assumed to have significantly more power are more capable than others, and if they are always self-interested, then a contract that creates equal partners is impossible -- the pact will establish an association of masters and servants. Needless to say, the strong will present the contract as being to the advantage of both: the strong no longer have to labour (and become rich, i.e. even stronger) and the weak receive an income and so do not starve[7]. So if freedom is considered as a function of ownership then it is very clear that individuals lacking property (outside their own body, of course) lose effective control over their own person and labour (which was, least we forget, the basis of their equal natural rights). When ones bargaining power is weak (which is typically the case in the labour market) exchanges tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time rather than working towards an equalisation.
In other words, "contract" need not replace power if the bargaining position and wealth of the would-be contractors are not equal (for, if the bargainers had equal power it is doubtful they would agree to sell control of their liberty/labour to another). This means that "power" and "market" are not antithetical terms. While, in an abstract sense, all market relations are voluntary in practice this is not the case within a capitalist market. A large company has a comparative advantage over smaller ones, communities and individual workers which will definitely shape the outcome of any contract. For example, a large company or rich person will have access to more funds and so stretch out litigations and strikes until their opponents resources are exhausted. Or, if a company is polluting the environment, the local community may put up with the damage caused out of fear that the industry (which it depends upon) would relocate to another area. If members of the community did sue, then the company would be merely exercising its property rights when it threatened to move to another location. In such circumstances, the community would "freely" consent to its conditions or face massive economic and social disruption. And, similarly, "the landlords' agents who threatened to discharge agricultural workers and tenants who failed to vote the reactionary ticket" in the 1936 Spanish election were just exercising their legitimate property rights when they threatened working people and their families with economic uncertainty and distress[8].
If we take the labour market, it is clear that the "buyers" and "sellers" of labour power are rarely on an equal footing (if they were, then capitalism would soon go into crisis -- see section C.7). As we stressed in section C.9, under capitalism competition in labour markets is typically skewed in favour of employers. Thus the ability to refuse an exchange weighs most heavily on one class than another and so ensures that "free exchange" works to ensure the domination (and so exploitation) of one by the other. Inequality in the market ensures that the decisions of the majority of people within it are shaped in accordance with that needs of the powerful, not the needs of all. It was for this reason, for example, that the Individual Anarchist J.K. Ingalls opposed Henry George's proposal of nationalising the land. Ingalls was well aware that the rich could outbid the poor for leases on land and so the dispossession of the working class would continue.
The market, therefore, does not end power or unfreedom -- they are still there, but in different forms. And for an exchange to be truly voluntary, both parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms. Unfortunately, these conditions are rarely meet on the labour market or within the capitalist market in general. Thus Rothbard's argument that economic power does not exist fails to acknowledge that the rich can out-bid the poor for resources and that a corporation generally has greater ability to refuse a contract (with an individual, union or community) than vice versa (and that the impact of such a refusal is such that it will encourage the others involved to compromise far sooner). In such circumstances, formally free individuals will have to "consent" to be unfree in order to survive. Looking at the tread-mill of modern capitalism, at what we end up tolerating for the sake of earning enough money to survive it comes as no surprise that anarchists have asked whether the market is serving us or are we serving it (and, of course, those who have positions of power within it).
So inequality cannot be easily dismissed. As Max Stirner pointed out, « la libre concurrence n'est pas « libre », parce que les moyens de concourir, les choses nécessaires à la concurrence me font défaut. » Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of "things") we find that « le régime bourgeois livre les travailleurs aux possesseurs, c'est-à -dire [...], aux capitalistes. L'ouvrier ne peut tirer de son travail un prix en rapport avec la valeur qu'a le produit de ce travail pour celui qui le consomme. [...] Le plus gros bénéfice en va au capitaliste.[9] » It is interesting to note that even Stirner recognised that capitalism results in exploitation and that its roots lie in inequalities in property and so power. And we may add that value the labourer does not "realise" goes into the hands of the capitalists, who invest it in more "things" and which consolidates and increases their advantage in "free" competition. To quote Stephan L. Newman:
"Another disquieting aspect of the libertarians' refusal to acknowledge power in the market is their failure to confront the tension between freedom and autonomy. . . Wage labour under capitalism is, of course, formally free labour. No one is forced to work at gun point. Economic circumstance, however, often has the effect of force; it compels the relatively poor to accept work under conditions dictated by owners and managers. The individual worker retains freedom [i.e. negative liberty] but loses autonomy [positive liberty][10]."
If we consider "equality before the law" it is obvious that this also has limitations in an (materially) unequal society. Brian Morris notes that for Ayn Rand, "[u]nder capitalism . . . politics (state) and economics (capitalism) are separated . . . This, of course, is pure ideology, for Rand's justification of the state is that it 'protects' private property, that is, it supports and upholds the economic power of capitalists by coercive means.[11]" The same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies" and "general libertarian law code." If within a society a few own all the resources and the majority are dispossessed, then any law code which protects private property automatically empowers the owning class. Workers will always be initiating force if they rebel against their bosses or act against the code and so equality before the law" reflects and reinforces inequality of power and wealth. This means that a system of property rights protects the liberties of some people in a way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power over others. And this critique cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights in question, we have to assess the relative importance of the various kinds of liberty and other values we hold dear.
Therefore right-"libertarian" disregard for equality is important because it allows "anarcho"-capitalism to ignore many important restrictions of freedom in society. In addition, it allows them to brush over the negative effects of their system by painting an unreal picture of a capitalist society without vast extremes of wealth and power (indeed, they often construe capitalist society in terms of an ideal -- namely artisan production -- that is pre-capitalist and whose social basis has been eroded by capitalist development). Inequality shapes the decisions we have available and what ones we make:
"An 'incentive' is always available in conditions of substantial social inequality that ensure that the 'weak' enter into a contract. When social inequality prevails, questions arise about what counts as voluntary entry into a contract. This is why socialists and feminists have focused on the conditions of entry into the employment contract and the marriage contract. Men and women . . . are now juridically free and equal citizens, but, in unequal social conditions, the possibility cannot be ruled out that some or many contracts create relationships that bear uncomfortable resemblances to a slave contract.[12]"
This ideological confusion of right-libertarianism can also be seen from their opposition to taxation. On the one hand, they argue that taxation is wrong because it takes money from those who "earn" it and gives it to the poor. On the other hand, "free market" capitalism is assumed to be a more equal society! If taxation takes from the rich and gives to the poor, how will "anarcho"-capitalism be more egalitarian? That equalisation mechanism would be gone (of course, it could be claimed that all great riches are purely the result of state intervention skewing the "free market" but that places all their "rags to riches" stories in a strange position). Thus we have a problem: either we have relative equality or we do not. Either we have riches, and so market power, or we do not. And its clear from the likes of Rothbard, "anarcho"-capitalism will not be without its millionaires (there is, according to him, apparently nothing un-libertarian about "hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party[13]"). And so we are left with market power and so extensive unfreedom.
Thus, for a ideology that denounces egalitarianism as a "revolt against nature" it is pretty funny that they paint a picture of "anarcho"-capitalism as a society of (relative) equals. In other words, their propaganda is based on something that has never existed, and never will: an egalitarian capitalist society. Without the implicit assumption of equality which underlies their rhetoric then the obvious limitations of their vision of "liberty" become too obvious. Any real laissez-faire capitalism would be unequal and "those who have wealth and power would only increase their privileges, while the weak and poor would go to the wall . . . Right-wing libertarians merely want freedom for themselves to protect their privileges and to exploit others[14]."
|
Notes et références
- ↑ Murray Rothbard, L'Éthique de la Liberté, Chapitre XXVIII.
- ↑ Élisée Reclus, L'Homme et la Terre
- ↑ Cité par John P. Clark et Camille Martin), Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 95 et p. 96-97
- ↑ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 46.
- ↑ Note du Traducteur : Lois crées par la couronne britannique afin de contrôler et d'avoir des informations sur les pauvres, en leur fournissant une aide financière. L'auteur ne fait ici référence qu'aux aides financières, pas au contrôle.
- ↑ George Walfort, On the Capitalist Anarchists.
- ↑ Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p. 61.
- ↑ Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 260.
- ↑ Max Stirner, L'Unique et sa propriété, sections intitulées relations [deuxième partie] Le Libéralisme politique [première partie], traduit par Robert L. Leclaire.
- ↑ Stephan L. Newman, Liberalism at Wit's End, p. 122-123.
- ↑ Brian Morris, Ecology & Anarchism, p. 189.
- ↑ Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 62
- ↑ Black, The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, The Libertarian As Conservative, p. 142.
- ↑ Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 653.