Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:F.6.4 - Pourquoi ces « associations de défense » sont-elles des États ?"
(Nouvelle page : It is clear that "anarcho"-capitalist defence associations meet the criteria of statehood outlined in section B.2 ("Why are anarchists against the state"). They defend property and p...) |
(+) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{faqanarFd}} | |
| − | + | Il est clair que les associations de défense "anarcho"-capitaliste répondent aux critères d'un État décrit dans la section B.2 ( "Pourquoi les anarchistes sont contre l'État"). Ils défendent la propriété et préservent les relations hiérarchiques, ils mettent en pratique la contrainte, et ce sont des institutions hiérarchiques qui gouvernent ceux en desous d'eux au nom d'une « élite dirigeante », c'est-à -dire ceux qui emploient à la fois la force du gouvernement et ceux qu'ils gouvernent. Ainsi, depuis une perspective anarchiste, ces "associations de défense" sont définitivement des États. | |
| − | + | Ce qui est intéressant, cependant, c'est que, de par leur propre définition une très bonne affaire peut être faite de ces "associations de défense" en tant qu'état dans le sens "anarcho"-capitaliste aussi. Les apologistes capitalistes en général définissent un « gouvernement » (ou un état) comme ceux qui ont un monopole de la force et de la contrainte dans une zone donnée. Par rapport au reste de la société, ces associations de défense auraient un monopole de la force et la contrainte d'un morceau de propriété, ce qui, par la propre définition "anarcho"-capitaliste de l'État, ces associations seraient admissibles! | |
| − | + | Si nous regardons la définition de l'État de Rothbard, qui exige que (a) le pouvoir d'imposition et / ou (b) d'un "monopole de la contrainte de la disposition de la défense sur une zone donnée", l'"anarcho"-capitalisme se heurte à des difficultés. | |
| + | |||
| + | En premier lieu, les frais de location des associations de défense seront déduites de la richesse créée par ceux qui utilisent, mais ne la possede pas, la propriété des capitalistes et des propriétaires. N'oublions pas qu'un capitaliste n'emploit un travailleur ou ne loue la terre et un logement que s'il a un bénéfice à le faire. Sans le travail du travailleur, il n'y aurait rien à vendre et aucun salaire pour payer le loyer. Ainsi, une compagnie de défense des entreprises ou d'un propriétaire sera payée grâce aux recettes recueillies auprès des pouvoirs capitalistes pour extraire une taxe de ceux qui utilisent, mais ne possèdent pas, une propriété. En d'autres termes, les travailleurs paieront pour les agences qui imposeront l'autorité des employeurs sur eux par l'intermédiaire du système des salaires et de loyer - la fiscalité sous une forme plus insidieuse. | ||
In the second, under capitalism most people spend a large part of their day on other people's property -- that is, they work for capitalists and/or live in rented accommodation. Hence if property owners select a "defence association" to protect their factories, farms, rental housing, etc., their employees and tenants will view it as a "coerced monopoly of the provision of defence over a given area." For certainly the employees and tenants will not be able to hire their own defence companies to expropriate the capitalists and landlords. So, from the standpoint of the employees and tenants, the owners do have a monopoly of "defence" over the areas in question. Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist will argue that the tenants and workers "consent" to all the rules and conditions of a contract when they sign it and so the property owner's monopoly is not "coerced." However, the "consent" argument is so weak in conditions of inequality as to be useless (see sections F.2.4 and F.3.1, for example) and, moreover, it can and has been used to justify the state. In other words, "consent" in and of itself does not ensure that a given regime is not statist (see section F.2.3 for more on this). So an argument along these lines is deeply flawed and can be used to justify regimes which are little better than "industrial feudalism" (such as company towns, for example -- an institution which "anarcho"-capitalism has no problem with). Even the "general libertarian law code," could be considered a "monopoly of government over a particular area," particularly if ordinary people have no real means of affecting the law code, either because it is market-driven and so is money-determined, or because it will be "natural" law and so unchangeable by mere mortals. | In the second, under capitalism most people spend a large part of their day on other people's property -- that is, they work for capitalists and/or live in rented accommodation. Hence if property owners select a "defence association" to protect their factories, farms, rental housing, etc., their employees and tenants will view it as a "coerced monopoly of the provision of defence over a given area." For certainly the employees and tenants will not be able to hire their own defence companies to expropriate the capitalists and landlords. So, from the standpoint of the employees and tenants, the owners do have a monopoly of "defence" over the areas in question. Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist will argue that the tenants and workers "consent" to all the rules and conditions of a contract when they sign it and so the property owner's monopoly is not "coerced." However, the "consent" argument is so weak in conditions of inequality as to be useless (see sections F.2.4 and F.3.1, for example) and, moreover, it can and has been used to justify the state. In other words, "consent" in and of itself does not ensure that a given regime is not statist (see section F.2.3 for more on this). So an argument along these lines is deeply flawed and can be used to justify regimes which are little better than "industrial feudalism" (such as company towns, for example -- an institution which "anarcho"-capitalism has no problem with). Even the "general libertarian law code," could be considered a "monopoly of government over a particular area," particularly if ordinary people have no real means of affecting the law code, either because it is market-driven and so is money-determined, or because it will be "natural" law and so unchangeable by mere mortals. | ||
Revision as of 18:12, 11 May 2008
Catégorie:L’anarcho-capitalisme est-il un type d’anarchisme ?
Il est clair que les associations de défense "anarcho"-capitaliste répondent aux critères d'un État décrit dans la section B.2 ( "Pourquoi les anarchistes sont contre l'État"). Ils défendent la propriété et préservent les relations hiérarchiques, ils mettent en pratique la contrainte, et ce sont des institutions hiérarchiques qui gouvernent ceux en desous d'eux au nom d'une « élite dirigeante », c'est-à -dire ceux qui emploient à la fois la force du gouvernement et ceux qu'ils gouvernent. Ainsi, depuis une perspective anarchiste, ces "associations de défense" sont définitivement des États.
Ce qui est intéressant, cependant, c'est que, de par leur propre définition une très bonne affaire peut être faite de ces "associations de défense" en tant qu'état dans le sens "anarcho"-capitaliste aussi. Les apologistes capitalistes en général définissent un « gouvernement » (ou un état) comme ceux qui ont un monopole de la force et de la contrainte dans une zone donnée. Par rapport au reste de la société, ces associations de défense auraient un monopole de la force et la contrainte d'un morceau de propriété, ce qui, par la propre définition "anarcho"-capitaliste de l'État, ces associations seraient admissibles!
Si nous regardons la définition de l'État de Rothbard, qui exige que (a) le pouvoir d'imposition et / ou (b) d'un "monopole de la contrainte de la disposition de la défense sur une zone donnée", l'"anarcho"-capitalisme se heurte à des difficultés.
En premier lieu, les frais de location des associations de défense seront déduites de la richesse créée par ceux qui utilisent, mais ne la possede pas, la propriété des capitalistes et des propriétaires. N'oublions pas qu'un capitaliste n'emploit un travailleur ou ne loue la terre et un logement que s'il a un bénéfice à le faire. Sans le travail du travailleur, il n'y aurait rien à vendre et aucun salaire pour payer le loyer. Ainsi, une compagnie de défense des entreprises ou d'un propriétaire sera payée grâce aux recettes recueillies auprès des pouvoirs capitalistes pour extraire une taxe de ceux qui utilisent, mais ne possèdent pas, une propriété. En d'autres termes, les travailleurs paieront pour les agences qui imposeront l'autorité des employeurs sur eux par l'intermédiaire du système des salaires et de loyer - la fiscalité sous une forme plus insidieuse.
In the second, under capitalism most people spend a large part of their day on other people's property -- that is, they work for capitalists and/or live in rented accommodation. Hence if property owners select a "defence association" to protect their factories, farms, rental housing, etc., their employees and tenants will view it as a "coerced monopoly of the provision of defence over a given area." For certainly the employees and tenants will not be able to hire their own defence companies to expropriate the capitalists and landlords. So, from the standpoint of the employees and tenants, the owners do have a monopoly of "defence" over the areas in question. Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist will argue that the tenants and workers "consent" to all the rules and conditions of a contract when they sign it and so the property owner's monopoly is not "coerced." However, the "consent" argument is so weak in conditions of inequality as to be useless (see sections F.2.4 and F.3.1, for example) and, moreover, it can and has been used to justify the state. In other words, "consent" in and of itself does not ensure that a given regime is not statist (see section F.2.3 for more on this). So an argument along these lines is deeply flawed and can be used to justify regimes which are little better than "industrial feudalism" (such as company towns, for example -- an institution which "anarcho"-capitalism has no problem with). Even the "general libertarian law code," could be considered a "monopoly of government over a particular area," particularly if ordinary people have no real means of affecting the law code, either because it is market-driven and so is money-determined, or because it will be "natural" law and so unchangeable by mere mortals.
In other words, if the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area territorial area" [Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p. 170] then its pretty clear that the property owner shares this power. The owner is, after all, the "ultimate decision-making power" in their workplace or on their land. If the boss takes a dislike to you (for example, you do not follow their orders) then you get fired. If you cannot get a job or rent the land without agreeing to certain conditions (such as not joining a union or subscribing to the "defence firm" approved by your employer) then you either sign the contract or look for something else. Of course Rothbard fails to note that bosses have this monopoly of power and is instead referring to "prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defence and judicial services." [Op. Cit., p. 171] But just as surely as the law of contract allows the banning of unions from a property, it can just as surely ban the sale and purchase of defence and judicial services (it could be argued that market forces will stop this happening, but this is unlikely as bosses usually have the advantage on the labour market and workers have to compromise to get a job -- see section F.10.2 on why this is the case). After all, in the company towns, only company money was legal tender and company police the only law enforcers.
Therefore, it is obvious that the "anarcho"-capitalist system meets the Weberian criteria of a monopoly to enforce certain rules in a given area of land. The "general libertarian law code" is a monopoly and property owners determine the rules that apply to their property. Moreover, if the rules that property owners enforce are subject to rules contained in the monopolistic "general libertarian law code" (for example, that they cannot ban the sale and purchase of certain products -- such as defence -- on their own territory) then "anarcho"-capitalism definitely meets the Weberian definition of the state (as described by Ayn Rand as an institution "that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of conduct in a given geographical area" [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 239]) as its "law code" overrides the desires of property owners to do what they like on their own property.
Therefore, no matter how you look at it, "anarcho"-capitalism and its "defence" market promotes a "monopoly of ultimate decision making power" over a "given territorial area". It is obvious that for anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist system is a state system. As, as we note, a reasonable case can be made for it also being a state in "anarcho"-capitalist theory as well.
So, in effect, "anarcho"-capitalism has a different sort of state, one in which bosses hire and fire the policeman. As Peter Sabatini notes [in Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy], "[w]ithin Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. . . Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now."
Far from wanting to abolish the state, then, "anarcho"-capitalists only desire to privatise it - to make it solely accountable to capitalist wealth. Their "companies" perform the same services as the state, for the same people, in the same manner. However, there is one slight difference. Property owners would be able to select between competing companies for their "services." Because such "companies" are employed by the boss, they would be used to reinforce the totalitarian nature of capitalist firms by ensuring that the police and the law they enforce are not even slightly accountable to ordinary people.
Looking beyond the "defence association" to the defence market itself (as we argued in the last section), this will become a cartel and so become some kind of public state. The very nature of the private state, its need to co-operate with others in the same industry, push it towards a monopoly network of firms and so a monopoly of force over a given area. Given the assumptions used to defend "anarcho"-capitalism, its system of private statism will develop into public statism - a state run by managers accountable only to the share-holding elite.
To quote Peter Marshall again, the "anarcho"-capitalists "claim that all would benefit from a free exchange on the market, it is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 565] History, and current practice, prove this point.
In short, "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists at all, they are just capitalists who desire to see private states develop -- states which are strictly accountable to their paymasters without even the sham of democracy we have today. Hence a far better name for "anarcho"-capitalism would be "private-state" capitalism. At least that way we get a fairer idea of what they are trying to sell us. As Bob Black writes in The Libertarian as Conservative, "To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else. . . . They don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it."
| |
Notes et références
