Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:F.8.1 - Quelles sont les forces sociales derrière la montée du capitalisme ?"

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(cp / cl http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF8.html#secf81)
 
(+)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{faqanarFd}}
 
{{faqanarFd}}
 +
La société capitaliste est d'un développement relativement récent. Pour Marx, tandis que les marchés existent depuis des millénaires, "''l'ère capitaliste date du XVIe siècle''"<ref>Capital, Vol. 1, p. 876</ref>. Comme Murray Bookchin a pu le relever, pour une "''longue période, peut-être de plus de cinq siècles''", le capitalisme "''coexiste avec des relations à base simple et féodales''" en Europe. Il a fait valoir que ce délai "''ne peut tout simplement pas être traité comme 'transitionnel' sans relire le présent dans le passé''" <ref>From Urbanisation to Cities, p. 179</ref>. En d'autres termes, le capitalisme n'était pas une conséquence inévitable de "l'histoire" ou de l'évolution sociale.
  
−
Capitalist society is a relatively recent development. For Marx, while markets have existed for millennium "the capitalist era dates from the sixteenth century." [Capital, vol. 1, p. 876] As Murray Bookchin pointed out, for a "long era, perhaps spanning more than five centuries," capitalism "coexisted with feudal and simple commodity relationships" in Europe. He argues that this period "simply cannot be treated as 'transitional' without reading back the present into the past." [From Urbanisation to Cities, p. 179] In other words, capitalism was not a inevitable outcome of "history" or social evolution.
+
Bookchin est allé à noter que le capitalisme a existé "''de plus en plus en importance dans l'économie mixte de l'Occident du XIVe siècle jusqu'au XVIIe''", mais qu'il a "''littéralement explosé en existant en Europe, particulierement en Angleterre, au cours du dix-huitième et spécialement au dix-neuvième siècle''"<ref>Op. Cit., P. 181</ref>. La question se pose, qu'est ce qui se trouvait derrière cette "importance croissante" ? Le capitalisme a-t-il "explosé" en raison de sa nature plus efficace ou existe-t-il d'autres, non économiques, forces en travail ? Comme nous allons le montrer, c'est très certainement la deuxième - le capitalisme est né non pas de forces économiques, mais de l'action politique de l'élite sociale que son usure a enrichi. Contrairement à la production de l'artisan (simple marchandise), le travail salarié génère des inégalités et de la richesse pour quelques-uns et qui seront sélectionnés, protégés et encouragés par ceux qui contrôlent l'État dans leurs propres intérêts économiques et sociaux.
  
−
Bookchin went on to note that capitalism existed "with growing significance in the mixed economy of the West from the fourteenth century up to the seventeenth" but that it "literally exploded into being in Europe, particularly England, during the eighteenth and especially nineteenth centuries." [Op. Cit., p. 181] The question arises, what lay behind this "growing significance"? Did capitalism "explode" due to its inherently more efficient nature or where there other, non-economic, forces at work? As we will show, it was most definitely the second -- capitalism was born not from economic forces but from the political actions of the social elites which its usury enriched. Unlike artisan (simple commodity) production, wage labour generates inequalities and wealth for the few and so will be selected, protected and encouraged by those who control the state in their own economic and social interests.  
+
Le développement du capitalisme en Europe a été favorisée par deux élites sociales, l'augmentation de la classe capitaliste au sein de la dégénérescence des villes médiévales et les État absolutiste. La ville médiévale a été "''complètement changé par l'augmentation progressive de la puissance du capital commercial, principalement en raison du commerce extérieur... En cela, l'unité intérieure de la commune a été assouplie, ce qui donne lieu à de plus en plus un système de castes et conduit nécessairement à une progressive inégalité des intérêts sociaux. Les minorités privilégiés pressent de plus en plus nettement vers une centralisation des forces politiques de la communauté... Le Mercantilisme dans les républiques de ville périssantes conduit logiquement à une demande pour de plus grande unités économiques [c'est-à-dire à nationaliser le marché], et par cela, le désir de renforcer les formes politiques a été sensiblement étoffé... Ainsi, la ville est devenu progressivement un petit État, ouvrant la voie à l'État national à venir''"<ref>Rudolf Rocker, nationalisme et culture, p. 94</ref>. Kropotkine a souligné que, dans cette destruction de l'auto-organisation des communes, l'état non seulement a servi les intérêts de la haute classe capitaliste, mais aussi des siens propres. Tout comme le propriétaire et le capitaliste cherche une main-d'œuvre et un marché du travail composé d'atomisés et d'isolés, il en va de même de l'État cherchant à éliminer tous les concurrents potentiels à son pouvoir et s'opposant à "''toutes les coalitions et de toutes les sociétés privées, quelle que soit leur objectif''"<ref>The State: It's Historic role, p 53</ref>.
−
 
+
−
The development of capitalism in Europe was favoured by two social elites, the rising capitalist class within the degenerating medieval cities and the absolutist state. The medieval city was "thoroughly changed by the gradual increase in the power of commercial capital, due primarily to foreign trade . . . By this the inner unity of the commune was loosened, giving place to a growing caste system and leading necessarily to a progressive inequality of social interests. The privileged minorities pressed ever more definitely towards a centralisation of the political forces of the community. . . Mercantilism in the perishing city republics led logically to a demand for larger economic units [i.e. to nationalise the market]; and by this the desire for stronger political forms was greatly strengthened . . . Thus the city gradually became a small state, paving the way for the coming national state." [Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p. 94] Kropotkin stressed that in this destruction of communal self-organisation the state not only served the interests of the rising capitalist class but also its own. Just as the landlord and capitalist seeks a workforce and labour market made up of atomised and isolated individuals, so does the state seek to eliminate all potential rivals to its power and so opposes "all coalitions and all private societies, whatever their aim." [The State: It's Historic role, p. 53]
+
  
 
The rising economic power of the proto-capitalists conflicted with that of the feudal lords, which meant that the former required help to consolidate their position. That aid came in the form of the monarchical state which, in turn, needed support against the feudal lords. With the force of absolutism behind it, capital could start the process of increasing its power and influence by expanding the "market" through state action. This use of state coercion was required because, as Bookchin noted, "[i]n every pre-capitalist society, countervailing forces . . . existed to restrict the market economy. No less significantly, many pre-capitalist societies raised what they thought were insuperable obstacles to the penetration of the State into social life." He noted the "power of village communities to resist the invasion of trade and despotic political forms into society's abiding communal substrate." State violence was required to break this resistance and, unsurprisingly the "one class to benefit most from the rising nation-state was the European bourgeoisie . . . This structure . . . provided the basis for the next great system of labour mobilisation: the factory." [The Ecology of Freedom, pp. 207-8 and p. 336] The absolutist state, noted Rocker, "was dependent upon the help of these new economic forces, and vice versa and so it "at first furthered the plans of commercial capital" as its coffers were filled by the expansion of commerce. Its armies and fleets "contributed to the expansion of industrial production because they demanded a number of things for whose large-scale production the shops of small tradesmen were no longer adapted. Thus gradually arose the so-called manufactures, the forerunners of the later large industries." [Op. Cit., pp. 117-8] As such, it is impossible to underestimate the role of state power in creating the preconditions for both agricultural and industrial capitalism.  
 
The rising economic power of the proto-capitalists conflicted with that of the feudal lords, which meant that the former required help to consolidate their position. That aid came in the form of the monarchical state which, in turn, needed support against the feudal lords. With the force of absolutism behind it, capital could start the process of increasing its power and influence by expanding the "market" through state action. This use of state coercion was required because, as Bookchin noted, "[i]n every pre-capitalist society, countervailing forces . . . existed to restrict the market economy. No less significantly, many pre-capitalist societies raised what they thought were insuperable obstacles to the penetration of the State into social life." He noted the "power of village communities to resist the invasion of trade and despotic political forms into society's abiding communal substrate." State violence was required to break this resistance and, unsurprisingly the "one class to benefit most from the rising nation-state was the European bourgeoisie . . . This structure . . . provided the basis for the next great system of labour mobilisation: the factory." [The Ecology of Freedom, pp. 207-8 and p. 336] The absolutist state, noted Rocker, "was dependent upon the help of these new economic forces, and vice versa and so it "at first furthered the plans of commercial capital" as its coffers were filled by the expansion of commerce. Its armies and fleets "contributed to the expansion of industrial production because they demanded a number of things for whose large-scale production the shops of small tradesmen were no longer adapted. Thus gradually arose the so-called manufactures, the forerunners of the later large industries." [Op. Cit., pp. 117-8] As such, it is impossible to underestimate the role of state power in creating the preconditions for both agricultural and industrial capitalism.  

Revision as of 20:22, 17 July 2008

FAQ anarchiste
Anarchy-symbol.svg
« L'anarchie c'est l'ordre moins le pouvoir »
F - L’anarcho-capitalisme est-il un type d’anarchisme ?

Introduction

F.1 - Les "anarcho"-capitalistes sont-ils vraiment des anarchistes ?

F.2 - Que signifie "liberté" pour les "anarcho"-capitalistes ?

F.2.1 - Comment la propriété privée affecte la liberté ?
F.2.2 - Les libertarians-capitalistes supportent-ils l'esclavage ?

F.3 - Pourquoi les "anarcho"-capitalistes n'attribuent-ils généralement peu ou pas de valeur à l'"égalité" ?

F.3.1 - Pourquoi la négligence vis-à-vis de l'égalité est-elle si importante ?
F.3.2 - Peut-il y avoir une harmonie des intérêts dans une société inégalitaire ?

F.4 - Quelle est la position des libertariens sur la propriété privée ?

F.4.1 - Quel est le problème avec la théorie de propriété « homesteading » ?

F.5 - Privatiser les « terrains communaux » augmentera-t-il la liberté ?

F.6 - L'"anarcho"-capitalisme est il contre l'État ?

F.6.1 - Quel est le problème avec cette justice de « libre marché » ?
F.6.2 - Quelles sont les conséquences sociales d'un tel système ?
F.6.3 - Mais sûrement que les forces du marché arrêteront l'abus des riches ?
F.6.4 - Pourquoi ces « associations de défense » sont-elles des États ?

F.7 - Comment l'histoire de l'"anarcho"-capitalisme prouve-t-elle que cette théorie n'est pas anarchiste ?

F.7.1 - Les gouvernements en concurrence sont-ils de l'anarchisme?
F.7.2 - Le gouvernement est-il compatible avec l'anarchisme ?
F.7.3 - Peut-il exister un "anarchisme" de droite ?

F.8 - Quel rôle l'État a-t-il pris dans la création du capitalisme ?

F.8.1 - Quelles sont les forces sociales derrière la montée du capitalisme ?
F.8.2 - Quel était le contexte social amenant le « laissez-faire » ?
F.8.3 - Quelles autres formes l'intervention de l'État ont-elles prises en créant le capitalisme ?
F.8.4 - Les « enclosures » ne sont-elles pas un mythe socialiste ?
F.8.5 - Que diriez-vous du manque de clôtures en Amérique ?
F.8.6 - Comment les travailleurs voient-ils l'élévation de capitalisme ?
Sommaire complet et détaillé


Catégorie:L’anarcho-capitalisme est-il un type d’anarchisme ? La société capitaliste est d'un développement relativement récent. Pour Marx, tandis que les marchés existent depuis des millénaires, "l'ère capitaliste date du XVIe siècle"[1]. Comme Murray Bookchin a pu le relever, pour une "longue période, peut-être de plus de cinq siècles", le capitalisme "coexiste avec des relations à base simple et féodales" en Europe. Il a fait valoir que ce délai "ne peut tout simplement pas être traité comme 'transitionnel' sans relire le présent dans le passé" [2]. En d'autres termes, le capitalisme n'était pas une conséquence inévitable de "l'histoire" ou de l'évolution sociale.

Bookchin est allé à noter que le capitalisme a existé "de plus en plus en importance dans l'économie mixte de l'Occident du XIVe siècle jusqu'au XVIIe", mais qu'il a "littéralement explosé en existant en Europe, particulierement en Angleterre, au cours du dix-huitième et spécialement au dix-neuvième siècle"[3]. La question se pose, qu'est ce qui se trouvait derrière cette "importance croissante" ? Le capitalisme a-t-il "explosé" en raison de sa nature plus efficace ou existe-t-il d'autres, non économiques, forces en travail ? Comme nous allons le montrer, c'est très certainement la deuxième - le capitalisme est né non pas de forces économiques, mais de l'action politique de l'élite sociale que son usure a enrichi. Contrairement à la production de l'artisan (simple marchandise), le travail salarié génère des inégalités et de la richesse pour quelques-uns et qui seront sélectionnés, protégés et encouragés par ceux qui contrôlent l'État dans leurs propres intérêts économiques et sociaux.

Le développement du capitalisme en Europe a été favorisée par deux élites sociales, l'augmentation de la classe capitaliste au sein de la dégénérescence des villes médiévales et les État absolutiste. La ville médiévale a été "complètement changé par l'augmentation progressive de la puissance du capital commercial, principalement en raison du commerce extérieur... En cela, l'unité intérieure de la commune a été assouplie, ce qui donne lieu à de plus en plus un système de castes et conduit nécessairement à une progressive inégalité des intérêts sociaux. Les minorités privilégiés pressent de plus en plus nettement vers une centralisation des forces politiques de la communauté... Le Mercantilisme dans les républiques de ville périssantes conduit logiquement à une demande pour de plus grande unités économiques [c'est-à-dire à nationaliser le marché], et par cela, le désir de renforcer les formes politiques a été sensiblement étoffé... Ainsi, la ville est devenu progressivement un petit État, ouvrant la voie à l'État national à venir"[4]. Kropotkine a souligné que, dans cette destruction de l'auto-organisation des communes, l'état non seulement a servi les intérêts de la haute classe capitaliste, mais aussi des siens propres. Tout comme le propriétaire et le capitaliste cherche une main-d'œuvre et un marché du travail composé d'atomisés et d'isolés, il en va de même de l'État cherchant à éliminer tous les concurrents potentiels à son pouvoir et s'opposant à "toutes les coalitions et de toutes les sociétés privées, quelle que soit leur objectif"[5].

The rising economic power of the proto-capitalists conflicted with that of the feudal lords, which meant that the former required help to consolidate their position. That aid came in the form of the monarchical state which, in turn, needed support against the feudal lords. With the force of absolutism behind it, capital could start the process of increasing its power and influence by expanding the "market" through state action. This use of state coercion was required because, as Bookchin noted, "[i]n every pre-capitalist society, countervailing forces . . . existed to restrict the market economy. No less significantly, many pre-capitalist societies raised what they thought were insuperable obstacles to the penetration of the State into social life." He noted the "power of village communities to resist the invasion of trade and despotic political forms into society's abiding communal substrate." State violence was required to break this resistance and, unsurprisingly the "one class to benefit most from the rising nation-state was the European bourgeoisie . . . This structure . . . provided the basis for the next great system of labour mobilisation: the factory." [The Ecology of Freedom, pp. 207-8 and p. 336] The absolutist state, noted Rocker, "was dependent upon the help of these new economic forces, and vice versa and so it "at first furthered the plans of commercial capital" as its coffers were filled by the expansion of commerce. Its armies and fleets "contributed to the expansion of industrial production because they demanded a number of things for whose large-scale production the shops of small tradesmen were no longer adapted. Thus gradually arose the so-called manufactures, the forerunners of the later large industries." [Op. Cit., pp. 117-8] As such, it is impossible to underestimate the role of state power in creating the preconditions for both agricultural and industrial capitalism.

Some of the most important state actions from the standpoint of early industry were the so-called Enclosure Acts, by which the "commons" -- the free farmland shared communally by the peasants in most rural villages -- was "enclosed" or incorporated into the estates of various landlords as private property (see section F.8.3). This ensured a pool of landless workers who had no option but to sell their labour to landlords and capitalists. Indeed, the widespread independence caused by the possession of the majority of households of land caused the rising class of capitalists to complain, as one put it, "that men who should work as wage-labourers cling to the soil, and in the naughtiness of their hearts prefer independence as squatters to employment by a master." [quoted by Allan Engler, The Apostles of Greed, p. 12] Once in service to a master, the state was always on hand to repress any signs of "naughtiness" and "independence" (such as strikes, riots, unions and the like). For example, Seventeenth century France saw a "number of decrees . . . which forbade workers to change their employment or which prohibited assemblies of workers or strikes on pain of corporal punishment or even death. (Even the Theological Faculty of the University of Paris saw fit to pronounce solemnly against the sin of workers' organisation)." [Maurice Dobb, Studies in Capitalism Development, p. 160]

In addition, other forms of state aid ensured that capitalist firms got a head start, so ensuring their dominance over other forms of work (such as co-operatives). A major way of creating a pool of resources that could be used for investment was the use of mercantilist policies which used protectionist measures to enrich capitalists and landlords at the expense of consumers and their workers. For example, one of most common complaints of early capitalists was that workers could not turn up to work regularly. Once they had worked a few days, they disappeared as they had earned enough money to live on. With higher prices for food, caused by protectionist measures, workers had to work longer and harder and so became accustomed to factory labour. In addition, mercantilism allowed native industry to develop by barring foreign competition and so allowed industrialists to reap excess profits which they could then use to increase their investments. In the words of Marxist economic historian Maurice Dobb:


"In short, the Mercantile System was a system of State-regulated exploitation through trade which played a highly important rule in the adolescence of capitalist industry: it was essentially the economic policy of an age of primitive accumulation." [Op. Cit., p. 209] As Rocker summarises, "when absolutism had victoriously overcome all opposition to national unification, by its furthering of mercantilism and economic monopoly it gave the whole social evolution a direction which could only lead to capitalism." [Op. Cit., pp. 116-7]

Mercantilist policies took many forms, including the state providing capital to new industries, exempting them from guild rules and taxes, establishing monopolies over local, foreign and colonial markets, and granting titles and pensions to successful capitalists. In terms of foreign trade, the state assisted home-grown capitalists by imposing tariffs, quotas, and prohibitions on imports. They also prohibited the export of tools and technology as well as the emigration of skilled workers to stop competition (this applied to any colonies a specific state may have had). Other policies were applied as required by the needs of specific states. For example, the English state imposed a series of Navigation Acts which forced traders to use English ships to visit its ports and colonies (this destroyed the commerce of Holland, its chief rival). Nor should the impact of war be minimised, with the demand for weapons and transportation (including ships) injecting government spending into the economy. Unsurprisingly, given this favouring of domestic industry at the expense of its rivals and the subject working class population the mercantilist period was one of generally rapid growth, particularly in England.

As we discussed in section C.10, some kind of mercantilism has always been required for a country to industrialise. Over all, as economist Paul Ormerod puts it, the "advice to follow pure free-market polices seems . . . to be contrary to the lessons of virtually the whole of economic history since the Industrial Revolution . . . every country which has moved into . . . strong sustained growth . . . has done so in outright violation of pure, free-market principles." These interventions include the use of "tariff barriers" to protect infant industries, "government subsidies" and "active state intervention in the economy." He summarises: "The model of entrepreneurial activity in the product market, with judicious state support plus repression in the labour market, seems to be a good model of economic development." [The Death of Economics, p. 63]

Thus the social forces at work creating capitalism was a combination of capitalist activity and state action. But without the support of the state, it is doubtful that capitalist activity would have been enough to generate the initial accumulation required to start the economic ball rolling. Hence the necessity of Mercantilism in Europe and its modified cousin of state aid, tariffs and "homestead acts" in America.


notes et references

  1. ↑ Capital, Vol. 1, p. 876
  2. ↑ From Urbanisation to Cities, p. 179
  3. ↑ Op. Cit., P. 181
  4. ↑ Rudolf Rocker, nationalisme et culture, p. 94
  5. ↑ The State: It's Historic role, p 53
Voir la source initiale de cet article (en) traduite par [{{{3}}} {{{2}}}]

Retrieved from "http://fra.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=FAQAnar:F.8.1_-_Quelles_sont_les_forces_sociales_derrière_la_montée_du_capitalisme_%3F&oldid=40151"