1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023
|
<html>
<head>
<title>F.3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on equality?</title>
</head>
<h1>F.3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on equality?</h1>
<p>
Murray Rothbard argued that <i>"the 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed
to inequality."</i> [<b>For a New Liberty</b>, p. 47] In contrast,
genuine libertarians oppose inequality because it has harmful effects
on individual liberty. Part of the reason "anarcho"-capitalism places little
or no value on "equality" derives from their definition of that term. <i>"A and
B are 'equal,'"</i> Rothbard argued, <i>"if they are identical to each other
with respect to a given attribute . . . There is one and only one way, then, in
which any two people can really be 'equal' in the fullest sense: they must be
identical in <b>all</b> their attributes."</i> He then pointed out the obvious
fact that <i>"men are not uniform . . . the species, mankind, is uniquely
characterised by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation: in
short, inequality."</i> [<b>Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and
Other Essays</b>, p. 4 and p.5]
</p><p>
In others words, every individual is unique -- something no egalitarian
has ever denied. On the basis of this amazing insight, he concludes that
equality is impossible (except "equality of rights") and that the attempt
to achieve "equality" is a <i>"revolt against nature."</i> The utility of Rothbard's
sophistry to the rich and powerful should be obvious as it moves analysis
away from the social system we live in and onto biological differences. This
means that because we are all unique, the outcome of our actions will not be
identical and so social inequality flows from natural differences and not due
to the economic system we live under. Inequality of endowment, in this
perspective, implies inequality of outcome and so social inequality. As
individual differences are a fact of nature, attempts to create a society
based on "equality" (i.e. making everyone identical in terms of possessions
and so forth) is impossible and "unnatural." That this would be music to
the ears of the wealthy should go without saying.
</p><p>
Before continuing, we must note that Rothbard is destroying language to
make his point and that he is not the first to abuse language in this
particular way. In George Orwell's <b>1984</b>, the expression <i>"all
men are created equal"</i> could be translated into Newspeak <i>"but only
in the same sense in which <b>All men are redhaired</b> is a possible
Oldspeak sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it
expressed a palpable untruth -- i.e. that all men are of equal size,
weight, or strength."</i> [<i>"Appendix: The Principles of Newspeak"</i>,
<b>1984</b>, p. 246] It is nice to know that "Mr. Libertarian" is stealing
ideas from Big Brother, and for the same reason: to make critical thought
impossible by restricting the meaning of words.
</p><p>
"Equality," in the context of political discussion, does not mean "identical,"
it means equality of rights, respect, worth, power and so forth. It does not
imply treating everyone identically (for example, expecting an eighty year
old man to do identical work as an eighteen violates treating both equally
with respect as unique individuals). Needless to say, no anarchist has ever
advocated such a notion of equality as being identical. As discussed
in <a href="secA2.html#seca25">section A.2.5</a>, anarchists have always
based our arguments on the need for social equality on the fact that,
while people are different, we all have the same right to be free and
that inequality in wealth produces inequalities of liberty. For anarchists:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal <b>opportunity</b>
. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the
forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom,
not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the
same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the
very reverse, in fact. Individual needs
and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is <b>equal</b> opportunity to satisfy
them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens
the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For
human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity
results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and
acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities
and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate
man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be
only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence."</i>
[<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, pp. 164-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
So it is precisely the diversity of individuals (their uniqueness) which drives
the anarchist support for equality, not its denial. Thus anarchists reject the
Rothbardian-Newspeak definition of equality as meaningless. No two people are
identical and so imposing "identical" equality between them would mean treating
them as <b>unequals</b>, i.e. not having equal worth or giving them equal respect
as befits them as human beings and fellow unique individuals.
</p><p>
So what should we make of Rothbard's claim? It is tempting just to quote
Rousseau when he argued <i>"it is . . . useless to inquire whether there is any
essential connection between the two inequalities [social and natural];
for this would be only asking, in other words, whether those who command
are necessarily better than those who obey, and if strength of body or
of mind, wisdom, or virtue are always found in particular individuals,
in proportion to their power or wealth: a question fit perhaps to be
discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
to reasonable and free men in search of the truth."</i> [<b>The Social Contract
and Discourses</b>, p. 49] This seems applicable when you see Rothbard proclaim
that inequality of individuals will lead to inequalities of income as <i>"each
man will tend to earn an income equal to his 'marginal productivity.'"</i> This
is because <i>"some men"</i> (and it is always men!) are <i>"more intelligent,
others more alert and farsighted, than the remainder of the population"</i> and
capitalism will <i>"allow the rise of these natural aristocracies."</i> In fact,
for Rothbard, all government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the
superior man. [<b>The Logic of Action II</b>, p. 29 and p. 34] But a few
more points should be raised.
</p><p>
The uniqueness of individuals has always existed but for the vast majority
of human history we have lived in very egalitarian societies. If social
inequality did, indeed, flow from natural inequalities then <b>all</b>
societies would be marked by it. This is not the case. Indeed, taking
a relatively recent example, many visitors to the early United States
noted its egalitarian nature, something that soon changed with the rise
of capitalism (a rise dependent upon state action, we must add). This
implies that the society we live in (its rights framework, the social
relationships it generates and so forth) has far more of a decisive
impact on inequality than individual differences. Thus certain rights
frameworks will tend to magnify "natural" inequalities (assuming that
is the source of the initial inequality, rather than, say, violence
and force). As Noam Chomsky argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Presumably it is the case that in our 'real world' some combination of
attributes is conducive to success in responding to 'the demands of the
economic system.' Let us agree, for the sake of discussion, that this
combination of attributes is in part a matter of native endowment. Why
does this (alleged) fact pose an 'intellectual dilemma' to egalitarians?
Note that we can hardly claim much insight into just what the relevant
combination of attributes may be . . . One might suppose that some mixture
of avarice, selfishness, lack of concern for others, aggressiveness, and
similar characteristics play a part in getting ahead and 'making it' in a
competitive society based on capitalist principles. . . . Whatever the
correct collection of attributes may be, we may ask what follows from the
fact, if it is a fact, that some partially inherited combination of
attributes tends to material success? All that follows . . . is a comment
on our particular social and economic arrangements . . . The egalitarian
might respond, in all such cases, that the social order should be changed
so that the collection of attributes that tends to bring success no longer
do so. He might even argue that in a more decent society, the attributes
that now lead to success would be recognised as pathological, and that
gentle persuasion might be a proper means to help people to overcome their
unfortunate malady."</i> [<b>The Chomsky Reader</b>, p. 190]
</blockquote></p><p>
So if we change society then the social inequalities we see today
would disappear. It is more than probable that natural difference has been
long ago been replaced with <b>social</b> inequalities, especially inequalities
of property. And as we argue in <a href="secF8.html">section F.8</a> these
inequalities of
property were initially the result of force, <b>not</b> differences in ability.
Thus to claim that social inequality flows from natural differences is false
as most social inequality has flown from violence and force. This initial
inequality has been magnified by the framework of capitalist property rights
and so the inequality within capitalism is far more dependent upon, say, the
existence of wage labour rather than "natural" differences between individuals.
</p><p>
This can be seen from existing society: we see that in workplaces and across
industries many, if not most, unique individuals receive identical wages for
identical work (although this often is not the case for women and blacks, who
receive less wages than male, white workers for identical labour). Similarly,
capitalists have deliberately introduced wage inequalities and hierarchies for
no other reason that to divide and so rule the workforce (see
<a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>). Thus, if we assume egalitarianism
<b>is</b> a revolt against nature, then much of capitalist economic life is in
such a revolt and when it is not, the "natural" inequalities have usually been
imposed artificially by those in power either within the workplace or in society
as a whole by means of state intervention, property laws and authoritarian
social structures. Moreover, as we indicated in
<a href="secC2.html#secc25">section C.2.5</a>,
anarchists have been aware of the <i><b>collective</b></i> nature of production
within capitalism since Proudhon wrote <b>What is Property?</b> in 1840. Rothbard
ignores both the anarchist tradition and reality when he stresses that individual
differences produce inequalities of outcome. As an economist with a firmer grasp
of the real world put it, the <i>"notion that wages depend on personal skill, as
expressed in the value of output, makes no sense in any organisation where
production is interdependent and joint -- which is to say it makes no sense in
virtually any organisation."</i> [James K. Galbraith, <b>Created Unequal</b>, p. 263]
</p><p>
Thus "natural" differences do not necessarily result in inequality as such nor
do such differences have much meaning in an economy marked by joint production.
Given a different social system, "natural" differences would be encouraged
and celebrated far wider than they are under capitalism (where hierarchy
ensures the crushing of individuality rather than its encouragement) without
any reduction in social equality. At its most basic, the elimination of
hierarchy within the workplace would not only increase freedom but also
reduce inequality as the few would not be able to monopolise the decision
making process and the fruit of joint productive activity. So the claim
that "natural" differences generate social inequalities is question begging
in the extreme -- it takes the rights framework of capitalism as a given and
ignores the initial source of inequality in property and power. Indeed, inequality
of outcome or reward is more likely to be influenced by social conditions rather
than individual differences (as would be expected in a society based on wage labour
or other forms of exploitation).
</p><p>
Rothbard is at pains to portray egalitarians as driven by envy of the rich.
It is hard to credit "envy" as the driving force of the likes of Bakunin and
Kropotkin who left the life of wealthy aristocrats to become anarchists, who
suffered imprisonment in their struggles for liberty for all rather than an
elite. When this is pointed out, the typical right-wing response is to say
that this shows that <b>real</b> working class people are not socialists. In
other words if you are a working class anarchist then you are driven by envy
and if not, if you reject your class background, then you show that socialism
is not a working class movement! So driven by this assumption and hatred
for socialism Rothbard went so far as to distort Karl Marx's words to fit it
into his own ideological position. He stated that <i>"Marx concedes the truth
of the charge of anti-communists then and now"</i> that communism was the expression
of envy and a desire to reduce all to a common level. Except, of course, Marx did
nothing of the kind. In the passages Rothbard presented as evidence for his
claims, Marx is critiquing what he termed "crude" communism (the <i>"this type
of communism"</i> in the passage Rothbard quoted but clearly did not understand)
and it is, therefore, not surprising Marx <i>"clearly did not stress this dark
side of communist revolution in the his later writings"</i> as he explicitly
<b>rejected</b> this type of communism! For Rothbard, all types of socialism
seem to be identical and identified with central planning -- hence his bizarre
comment that <i>"Stalin established socialism in the Soviet Union."</i> [<b>The
Logic of Action II</b>, pp. 394-5 and p. 200]
</p><p>
Another reason for "anarcho"-capitalist lack of concern for equality is
that they think that (to use Robert Nozick's expression) <i>"liberty upsets
patterns"</i>. It is argued that equality (or any <i>"end-state principle
of justice"</i>) cannot be <i>"continuously realised without continuous
interference with people's lives,"</i> i.e. can only be maintained by restricting
individual freedom to make exchanges or by taxation of income. [<b>Anarchy,
State, and Utopia</b>, pp. 160-3] However, what this argument fails to
acknowledge is that inequality also restricts individual freedom and that the
capitalist property rights framework is not the only one possible. After
all, money is power and inequalities in terms of power easily result in
restrictions of liberty and the transformation of the majority into order
takers rather than free producers. In other words, once a certain level
of inequality is reached property does not promote, but actually conflicts
with, the ends which render private property legitimate. As we argue in
<a href="secF3.html#secf31">the next section</a>, inequality can easily led to
the situation where self-ownership is used to justify its own negation and
so unrestricted property rights will undermine the meaningful self-determination
which many people intuitively understand by the term "self-ownership" (i.e.,
what anarchists would usually call "freedom" rather than self-ownership). Thus
private property itself leads to continuous interference with people's lives,
as does the enforcement of Nozick's "just" distribution of property and the
power that flows from such inequality. Moreover, as many critics have noted
Nozick's argument assumes what it sets out to proves. As one put it, while
Nozick may <i>"wish to defend capitalist private property rights by insisting
that these are founded in basic liberties,"</i> in fact he <i>"has produced
. . . an argument for unrestricted private property using unrestricted private
property, and thus he begs the question he tries to answer."</i> [Andrew Kerhohan,
<i>"Capitalism and Self-Ownership"</i>, pp. 60-76, <b>Capitalism</b>,
Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miler, Jr, Jeffrey Paul and John Ahrens
(eds.), p. 71]
</p><p>
So in response to the claim that equality could only be maintained by
continuously interfering with people's lives, anarchists would say that
the inequalities produced by capitalist property rights also involve
extensive and continuous interference with people's lives. After all,
as Bob Black notes <i>"it is apparent that the source of greatest direct
duress experienced by the ordinary adult is <b>not</b> the state but rather
the business that employs him [or her]. Your foreman or supervisor
gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade."</i>
[<i>"The Libertarian As Conservative"</i>, <b>The Abolition of Work
and Other Essays</b>, p. 145] For example, a worker employed by a capitalist
cannot freely exchange the machines or raw materials they have been provided
with to use but Nozick does not class this distribution of "restricted"
property rights as infringing liberty (nor does he argue that wage slavery
itself restricts freedom, of course). Thus claims that equality involves
infringing liberty ignores the fact that inequality also infringes liberty (never
mind the significant negative effects of inequality, both of wealth and
power, we discussed in <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>). A reorganisation
of society could effectively minimise inequalities by eliminating the
major source of such inequalities (wage labour) by self-management. We
have no desire to restrict free exchanges (after all, most anarchists
desire to see the "gift economy" become a reality sooner or later) but we
argue that free exchanges need not involve the unrestricted capitalist
property rights Nozick assumes (see <a href="secI5.html#seci512">section I.5.12</a>
for a discussion of "capitalistic acts" within an anarchist society).
</p><p>
Rothbard, ironically, is aware of the fact that inequality restricts freedom
for the many. As he put it <i>"inequality of control"</i> is an <i>"inevitable
corollary of freedom"</i> for in any organisation <i>"there will always be a
minority of people who will rise to the position of leaders and others who
will remain as followers in the rank and file."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 30]
To requote Bob Black: <i>"Some people giving orders and others obeying them:
this is the essence of servitude."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 147] Perhaps if
Rothbard had spent some time in a workplace rather than in a tenured academic
post he may have realised that bosses are rarely the natural elite he thought
they were. Like the factory owner Engels, he was blissfully unaware that it
is the self-activity of the non-"elite" on the shop floor (the product of
which the boss monopolises) that keeps the whole hierarchical structure
going (as we discuss in <a href="secH4.html#sech44">section H.4.4</a>, the work
to rule -- were workers do <b>exactly</b> what the boss orders them to do -- is
a devastating weapon in the class struggle). It does seem somewhat ironic that the
anti-Marxist Rothbard should has recourse to the same argument as Engels in order
to refute the anarchist case for freedom within association! It should also be
mentioned that Black has also recognised this, noting that right-"libertarianism" and
mainstream Marxism <i>"are as different as Coke and Pepsi when it comes to consecrating
class society and the source of its power, work. Only upon the firm foundation
of factory fascism and office oligarchy do libertarians and Leninists dare to
debate the trivial issues dividing them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 146]
</p><p>
So, as Rothbard admits, inequality produces a <b>class</b> system and authoritarian
social relationships which are rooted in ownership and control of private property.
These produce specific areas of conflict over liberty, a fact of life which
Rothbard (like other "anarcho"-capitalists) is keen to deny as we discuss in
<a href="secF3.html#secf32">section F.3.2</a>. Thus, for anarchists, the
"anarcho"-capitalist opposition to equality misses the point and is extremely
question begging. Anarchists do not desire to make people "identical" (which
would be impossible and a total denial of liberty <b>and</b> equality) but to
make the social relationships between individuals equal in <b>power.</b> In
other words, they desire a situation where people interact together without
institutionalised power or hierarchy and are influenced by each other
"naturally," in proportion to how the (individual) <b>differences</b>
between (social) <b>equals</b> are applicable in a given context. To quote
Michael Bakunin, <i>"[t]he greatest intelligence would not be equal to a
comprehension of the whole. Thence results . . . the necessity of the
division and association of labour. I receive and I give -- such is human
life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no
fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual,
temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."</i>
[<b>God and the State</b>, p. 33]
</p><p>
Such an environment can only exist within self-managed associations,
for capitalism (i.e. wage labour) creates very specific relations
and institutions of authority. It is for this reason anarchists are
socialists. In other words, anarchists support equality precisely
<b>because</b> we recognise that everyone is unique. If we are serious about
"equality of rights" or "equal freedom" then conditions must be such
that people can enjoy these rights and liberties. If we assume the right
to develop one's capacities to the fullest, for example, then inequality
of resources and so power within society destroys that right simply because
most people do not have the means to freely exercise their capacities (they
are subject to the authority of the boss, for example, during work hours).
</p><p>
So, in direct contrast to anarchism, right-"libertarianism" is unconcerned
about any form of equality except "equality of rights". This blinds
them to the realities of life; in particular, the impact of economic and
social power on individuals within society and the social relationships
of domination they create. Individuals may be "equal" before the law and
in rights, but they may not be free due to the influence of social
inequality, the relationships it creates and how it affects the law and
the ability of the oppressed to use it. Because of this, all anarchists
insist that equality is essential for freedom, including those in the
Individualist Anarchist tradition the "anarcho"-capitalist tries to
co-opt (<i>"Spooner and Godwin insist that inequality corrupts freedom.
Their anarchism is directed as much against inequality as against tyranny"</i>
and so <i>"[w]hile sympathetic to Spooner's individualist anarchism, they
[Rothbard and David Friedman] fail to notice or conveniently overlook
its egalitarian implications."</i> [Stephen L. Newman, <b>Liberalism at Wit's
End</b>, p. 74 and p. 76]). Without social equality, individual freedom is
so restricted that it becomes a mockery (essentially limiting freedom
of the majority to choosing <b>which</b> master will govern them rather
than being free).
</p><p>
Of course, by defining "equality" in such a restrictive manner, Rothbard's
own ideology is proved to be nonsense. As L.A. Rollins notes, <i>"Libertarianism,
the advocacy of 'free society' in which people enjoy 'equal freedom' and
'equal rights,' is actually a specific form of egalitarianism. As such,
Libertarianism itself is a revolt against nature. If people, by their very
biological nature, are unequal in all the attributes necessary to achieving,
and preserving 'freedom' and 'rights' . . . then there is no way that people
can enjoy 'equal freedom' or 'equal rights'. If a free society is conceived
as a society of 'equal freedom,' then there ain't no such thing as 'a
free society'."</i> [<b>The Myth of Natural Law</b>, p. 36] Under capitalism,
freedom is a commodity like everything else. The more money you have, the
greater your freedom. "Equal" freedom, in the Newspeak-Rothbardian sense,
<b>cannot</b> exist! As for "equality before the law", its clear that such
a hope is always dashed against the rocks of wealth and market power. As far as
rights go, of course, both the rich and the poor have an "equal right" to
sleep under a bridge (assuming the bridge's owner agrees of course!); but
the owner of the bridge and the homeless have <b>different</b> rights, and so
they cannot be said to have "equal rights" in the Newspeak-Rothbardian
sense either. Needless to say, poor and rich will not "equally" use the
"right" to sleep under a bridge, either.
</p><p>
As Bob Black observed: <i>"The time of your life is the one commodity you can
sell but never buy back. Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a revolt
against nature, but his day is 24 hours long, just like everybody else's."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 147]
</p><p>
By twisting the language of political debate, the vast differences
in power in capitalist society can be "blamed" not on an unjust
and authoritarian system but on "biology" (we are all unique
individuals, after all). Unlike genes (although biotechnology
corporations are working on this, too!), human society <b>can</b> be
changed, by the individuals who comprise it, to reflect the basic
features we all share in common -- our humanity, our ability to
think and feel, and our need for freedom.</p>
<h2><a name="secf31">F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?</a></h2>
<p>
Simply because a disregard for equality soon ends with liberty for the
majority being negated in many important ways. Most "anarcho"-capitalists
and right-Libertarians deny (or at best ignore) market power. Rothbard,
for example, claims that economic power does not exist under capitalism;
what people call <i>"economic power"</i> is <i>"simply the right under
freedom to refuse to make an exchange"</i> and so the concept is meaningless.
[<b>The Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 222]
</p><p>
However, the fact is that there are substantial power centres in
society (and so are the source of hierarchical power and authoritarian
social relations) which are <b>not the state.</b> As Elisee Reclus put
it, the <i>"power of kings and emperors has limits, but that of wealth has
none at all. The dollar is the master of masters."</i> Thus wealth is a source
of power as <i>"the essential thing"</i> under capitalism <i>"is to train oneself
to pursue monetary gain, with the goal of commanding others by means of the
omnipotence of money. One's power increases in direct proportion to one's
economic resources."</i> [quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin (eds.),
<b>Anarchy, Geography, Modernity</b>, p. 95 and pp. 96-7] Thus the central
fallacy of "anarcho"-capitalism is the (unstated) assumption that the various
actors within an economy have relatively equal power. This assumption
has been noted by many readers of their works. For example, Peter Marshall
notes that <i>"'anarcho-capitalists' like Murray Rothbard assume individuals
would have equal bargaining power in a [capitalist] market-based society."</i>
[<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 46] George Walford also makes this point
in his comments on David Friedman's <b>The Machinery of Freedom</b>:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The private ownership envisaged by the anarcho-capitalists would be very
different from that which we know. It is hardly going too far to say that
while the one is nasty, the other would be nice. In anarcho-capitalism there
would be no National Insurance, no Social Security, no National Health
Service and not even anything corresponding to the Poor Laws; there would be
no public safety-nets at all. It would be a rigorously competitive society:
work, beg or die. But as one reads on, learning that each individual would
have to buy, personally, all goods and services needed, not only food,
clothing and shelter but also education, medicine, sanitation, justice,
police, all forms of security and insurance, even permission to use the
streets (for these also would be privately owned), as one reads about all
this a curious feature emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy
all these things.
</p><p>
"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.
</p><p>
"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 <b>anarcho</b>- 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."</i> [<b>On the
Capitalist Anarchists</b>]
</blockquote></p><p>
This assumption of (relative) equality comes to the fore in Murray
Rothbard's "Homesteading" concept of property (discussed in
<a href="secF4.html#secf41">section F.4.1</a>). "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 <b>not</b> 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 <a href="secF1.html">section F.1</a> 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 <a href="secF6.html#secf63">section F.6.3</a>)
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.
</p><p>
However, the right-"libertarian" denial of market power is unsurprising. The
<i>"necessity, not the redundancy, of the assumption about natural equality</i>
is required <i>"if the inherent problems of contract theory are not to become
too obvious."</i> If some individuals <b>are</b> 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. [Carole Pateman, <b>The Sexual Contract</b>, p. 61]
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.
</p><p>
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 <b>did</b> 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, <i>"the landlords' agents who threatened to discharge agricultural
workers and tenants who failed to vote the reactionary ticket"</i> 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. [Murray Bookchin, <b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>,
p. 260]
</p><p>
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 <a href="secC7.html">
section C.7</a>). As we stressed in <a href="secC9.html">section C.9</a>,
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.
</p><p>
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).
</p><p>
So inequality cannot be easily dismissed. As Max Stirner pointed out, free
competition <i>"is not 'free,' because I lack the <b>things</b> for
competition."</i> Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of "things") we find
that <i>"[u]nder the <b>regime</b> of the commonality the labourers always fall
into the hands of the possessors . . . of the capitalists, therefore. The
labourer cannot <b>realise</b> on his labour to the extent of the value that
it has for the customer . . . The capitalist has the greatest profit from it."</i>
[<b>The Ego and Its Own</b>, p. 262 and p. 115] 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 <i>"realise"</i> 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:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"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]."</i> [<b>Liberalism at Wit's End</b>, pp. 122-123]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
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, <i>"[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."</i> [<b>Ecology & Anarchism</b>, p. 189] The same can be said
of "anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies" and <i>"general
libertarian law code."</i> If within a society a few own all the resources
and the majority are dispossessed, then any law code which protects
private property <b>automatically</b> empowers the owning class. Workers
will <b>always</b> 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.
</p><p>
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 <b>pre</b>-capitalist and whose social basis has been eroded by
capitalist development). Inequality shapes the decisions we have available
and what ones we make:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"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."</i> [Carole Pateman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 62]
</blockquote></p><p>
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 <i>"hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds
by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party"</i> [quoted by
Black, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 142]). And so we are left with market power
and so extensive unfreedom.
</p><p>
Thus, for a ideology that denounces egalitarianism as a <i>"revolt against
nature"</i> 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 <i>"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."</i> [Peter Marshall, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 653]
</p>
<h2><a name="secf32">F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal society?</a></h2>
<p>
Like the right-liberalism it is derived from, "anarcho"-capitalism is based
on the concept of <i>"harmony of interests"</i> which was advanced by the
likes of Frdric Bastiat in the 19th century and Rothbard's mentor Ludwig
von Mises in the 20th. For Rothbard, <i>"all classes live in harmony through
the voluntary exchange of goods and services that mutually benefits them all."</i>
This meant that capitalists and workers have no antagonistic class interests
[<b>Classical Economics: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic
Thought</b>, Vol. 2, p. 380 and p. 382]
</p><p>
For Rothbard, class interest and conflict does not exist within capitalism,
except when it is supported by state power. It was, he asserted, <i>"fallacious
to employ such terms as 'class interests' or 'class conflict' in discussing
the market economy."</i> This was because of two things: <i>"harmony of
interests of different groups"</i> <b>and</b> <i>"lack of homogeneity among
the interests of any one social class."</i> It is only in <i>"relation to
<b>state</b> action that the interests of different men become welded into
'classes'."</i> This means that the <i>"homogeneity <b>emerges from</b>
the interventions of the government into society."</i> [<b>Conceived in Liberty</b>,
vol. 1, p. 261] So, in other words, class conflict is impossible under
capitalism because of the wonderful coincidence that there are,
simultaneously, both common interests between individuals and classes and
lack of any!
</p><p>
You do not need to be an anarchist or other socialist to see that this argument
is nonsense. Adam Smith, for example, simply recorded reality when he noted that
workers and bosses have <i>"interests [which] are by no means the same. The workmen
desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are
disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter to lower the wages of labour."</i>
[<b>The Wealth of Nations</b>, p. 58] The state, Smith recognised, was a key means
by which the property owning class maintained their position in society. As such,
it <b>reflects</b> economic class conflict and interests and does not <b>create</b>
it (this is <b>not</b> to suggest that economic class is the only form of social
hierarchy of course, just an extremely important one). American workers, unlike
Rothbard, were all too aware of the truth in Smith's analysis. For example, one
group argued in 1840 that the bosses <i>"hold us then at their mercy, and make us
work solely for their profit . . . The capitalist has no other interest in us,
than to get as much labour out of us as possible. We are hired men, and hired men,
like hired horses, have no souls."</i> Thus <i>"their interests as capitalist,
and ours as labourers, are directly opposite"</i> and <i>"in the nature of things,
hostile, and irreconcilable."</i> [quoted by Christopher L. Tomlins, <b>Law, Labor,
and Ideology in the Early American Republic</b>, p. 10] Then there is Alexander
Berkman's analysis:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"It is easy to understand why the masters don't want you to be organised, why they
are afraid of a real labour union. They know very well that a strong, fighting
union can compel higher wages and better conditions, which means less profit for
the plutocrats. That is why they do everything in their power to stop labour from
organising . . .
</p><p>
"The masters have found a very effective way to paralyse the strength of
organised labour. They have persuaded the workers that they have the same interests
as the employers . . . and what is good for the employer is also good for his
employees . . . If your interests are the same as those of your boss, then why
should you fight him? That is what they tell you . . . It is good for the
industrial magnates to have their workers believe [this] . . . [as they] will not
think of fighting their masters for better conditions, but they will be patient
and wait till the employer can 'share his prosperity' with them . . . If you
listen to your exploiters and their mouthpieces you will be 'good' and consider
only the interests of your masters . . . but no one cares about <b>your</b>
interests . . . 'Don't be selfish,' they admonish you, while the boss is getting
rich by your being good and unselfish. And they laugh in their sleeves and thank
the Lord that you are such an idiot.
</p><p>
"But . . . the interests of capital and labour are not the same. No greater lie
was ever invented than the so-called 'identity of interests' . . . It is clear
that . . . they are entirely opposite, in fact antagonistic to each other."</i>
[<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, pp. 74-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
That Rothbard denies this says a lot about the power of ideology.
</p><p>
Rothbard was clear what unions do, namely limit the authority of the boss and ensure
that workers keep more of the surplus value they produce. As he put it, unions
<i>"attempt to persuade workers that they can better their lot at the expense of
the employer. Consequently, they invariably attempt as much as possible to establish
work rules that hinder management's directives . . . In other words, instead of
agreeing to submit to the work orders of management in exchange for his pay, the
worker now set up not only minimum wages, but also work rules without which they
refuse to work."</i> This will <i>"lower output."</i> [<b>The Logic of Action II</b>, p. 40 and p. 41] Notice the assumption, that the income of and authority of
the boss are sacrosanct.
</p><p>
For Rothbard, unions lower productivity and harm profits because they contest the
authority of the boss to do what they like on their property (apparently, laissez-faire
was not applicable for working class people during working hours). Yet this implicitly
acknowledges that there <b>are</b> conflicts of interests between workers and bosses.
It does not take too much thought to discover possible conflicts of interests which
could arise between workers who seek to maximise their wages and minimise their
labour and bosses who seek to minimise their wage costs and maximise the output their
workers produce. It could be argued that if workers do win this conflict of interests
then their bosses will go out of business and so they harm themselves by not obeying
their industrial masters. The rational worker, in this perspective, would be the one
who best understood that his or her interests have become the same as the interests
of the boss because his or her prosperity will depend on how well their firm is
doing. In such cases, they will put the interest of the firm before their own and
not hinder the boss by questioning their authority. If that is the case, then "harmony
of interests" simply translates as "bosses know best" and "do what you are told" --
and such obedience is a fine "harmony" for the order giver we are sure!
</p><p>
So the interesting thing is that Rothbard's perspective produces a distinctly
servile conclusion. If workers do not have a conflict of interests with their
bosses then, obviously, the logical thing for the employee is to do whatever
their boss orders them to do. By serving their master, they automatically benefit
themselves. In contrast, anarchists have rejected such a position. For example,
William Godwin rejected capitalist private property precisely because of the
<i>"spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud"</i>
it produced. [<b>An Enquiry into Political Justice</b>, p. 732]
</p><p>
Moreover, we should note that Rothbard's diatribe against unions also implicitly
acknowledges the socialist critique of capitalism which stresses that it is
being subject to the authority of boss during work hours which makes exploitation
possible (see <a href="secC2.html">section C.2</a>). If wages represented the
workers' "marginal" contribution to production, bosses would not need to ensure
their orders were followed. So any real boss fights unions precisely because they
limit their ability to extract as much product as possible from the worker for
the agreed wage. As such, the hierarchical social relations within the workplace
ensure that there are no <i>"harmony of interests"</i> as the key to a successful
capitalist firm is to minimise wage costs in order to maximise profits. It
should also be noted that Rothbard has recourse to another concept "Austrian"
economists claims to reject during his anti-union comments. Somewhat ironically,
he appeals to equilibrium analysis as, apparently, <i>"wage rates on the non-union
labour market will always tend toward equilibrium in a smooth and harmonious
manner"</i> (in another essay, he opines that <i>"in the Austrian tradition
. . . the entrepreneur harmoniously adjusts the economy in the direction of
equilibrium"</i>). [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 41 and p. 234] True, he does not say
that the wages will reach equilibrium (and what stops them, unless, in part, it
is the actions of entrepreneurs disrupting the economy?) however, it is strange
that the labour market can approximate a situation which Austrian economists claim
does not exist! However, as noted in <a href="secC1.html#secc16">section C.1.6</a>
this fiction is required to hide the obvious economic power of the boss class
under capitalism.
</p><p>
Somewhat ironically, given his claims of <i>"harmony of interests,"</i> Rothbard
was well aware that landlords and capitalists have always used the state to
further their interests. However, he preferred to call this <i>"mercentilism"</i>
rather than capitalism. As such, it is amusing to read his short article
<i>"Mercentilism: A Lesson for Our Times?"</i> as it closely parallels Marx's
classic account of <i>"Primitive Accumulation"</i> contained in volume 1 of
<b>Capital</b>. [Rothbard, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 43-55] The key difference is
that Rothbard simply refused to see this state action as creating the
necessary preconditions for his beloved capitalism nor does it seem to
impact on his mantra of <i>"harmony of interests"</i> between classes. In spite
of documenting exactly how the capitalist and landlord class used the state
to enrich themselves at the expense of the working class, he refuses to
consider how this refutes any claim of <i>"harmony of interests"</i> between
exploiter and exploited.
</p><p>
Rothbard rightly notes that mercantilism involved the <i>"use of the state to
cripple or prohibit one's competition."</i> This applies to both foreign
capitalists and to the working class who are, of course, competitors in terms
of how income is divided. Unlike Marx, he simply failed to see how mercantilist
policies were instrumental for building an industrial economy and creating a
proletariat. Thus he thunders against mercantilism for <i>"lowering interest
rates artificially"</i> and promoting inflation which <i>"did not benefit the
poor"</i> as <i>"wages habitually lagged behind the rise in prices."</i> He
describes the <i>"desperate attempts by the ruling classes to coerce wages below
their market rates."</i> Somewhat ironically, given the "anarcho"-capitalist
opposition to legal holidays, he noted the mercantilists <i>"dislike of
holidays, by which the 'nation' was deprived of certain amounts of labour;
the desire of the individual worker for leisure was never considered
worthy of note."</i> So why were such "bad" economic laws imposed? Simply
because the landlords and capitalists were in charge of the state. As
Rothbard notes, <i>"this was clearly legislation for the benefit of the
feudal landlords and to the detriment of the workers"</i> while Parliament
<i>"was heavily landlord-dominated."</i> In Massachusetts the upper house
consisted <i>"of the wealthiest merchants and landowners."</i> The mercantilists,
he notes but does not ponder, <i>"were frankly interested in exploiting [the
workers'] labour to the utmost."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 44, p. 46, p. 47,
p. 51, p. 48, p. 51, p. 47, p. 54 and p. 47] Yet these policies made perfect
sense from their class perspective, they were essential for maximising a surplus
(profits) which was subsequently invested in developing industry. As such, they
were very successful and laid the foundation for the industrial capitalism of
the 19th century. The key change between mercantilism and capitalism proper
is that economic power is greater as the working class has been successfully
dispossessed from the means of life and, as such, political power need not
be appealed to as often and can appear, in rhetoric at least, defensive.
</p><p>
Discussing attempts by employers in Massachusetts in 1670 and 1672 to get
the state to enforce a maximum wage Rothbard opined that there <i>"seemed
to be no understanding of how wages are set in an unhampered market."</i>
[<b>Conceived in Liberty</b>, vol. 2, p. 18] On the contrary, dear professor,
the employers were perfectly aware of how wages were set in a market where
workers have the upper hand and, consequently, sought to use the state to
hamper the market. As they have constantly done since the dawn of capitalism
as, unlike certain economists, they are fully aware of the truth of <i>"harmony
of interests"</i> and acted accordingly. As we document in <a href="secF8.html">section
F.8</a>, the history of capitalism is filled with the capitalist class
using the state to enforce the kind of <i>"harmony of interests"</i> which
masters have always sought -- obedience. This statist intervention has continued
to this day as, in practice, the capitalist class has never totally relied on
economic power to enforce its rule due to the instability of the capitalist market
-- see <a href="secC7.html">section C.7</a> -- as well as the destructive effects
of market forces on society and the desire to bolster its position in the economy
at the expense of the working class -- see <a href="secD1.html">section D.1</a>.
That the history and current practice of capitalism was not sufficient to dispel
Rothbard of his <i>"harmony of interests"</i> position is significant. But, as
Rothbard was always at pains to stress as a good "Austrian" economist, empirical
testing does not prove or disprove a theory and so the history and practice of
capitalism matters little when evaluating the pros and cons of that system
(unless its history confirms Rothbard's ideology then he does make numerous
empirical statements).
</p><p>
For Rothbard, the obvious <b>class</b> based need for such policies
is missing. Instead, we get the pathetic comment that only <i>"certain"</i>
merchants and manufacturers <i>"benefited from these mercantilist laws."</i>
[<b>The Logic of Action II</b>, p. 44] He applied this same myopic
perspective to "actually existing" capitalism as well, of course, lamenting
the use of the state by certain capitalists as the product of economic
ignorance and/or special interests specific to the capitalists in question.
He simply could not see the forest for the trees. This is hardly a myopia
limited to Rothbard. Bastiat formulated his <i>"harmony of interests"</i>
theory precisely when the class struggle between workers and capitalists
had become a threat to the social order, when socialist ideas of all kinds
(including anarchism, which Bastiat explicitly opposed) were spreading
and the labour movement was organising illegally due to state bans in most
countries. As such, he was propagating the notion that workers and bosses
had interests in common when, in practice, it was most obviously the case
they had not. What "harmony" that did exist was due to state repression of
the labour movement, itself a strange necessity if labour and capital
<b>did</b> share interests.
</p><p>
The history of capitalism causes problems within "anarcho"-capitalism as it
claims that everyone benefits from market exchanges and that this, not coercion,
produces faster economic growth. If this <b>is</b> the case, then why did some
individuals reject the market in order to enrich themselves by political means
and, logically, impoverish themselves in the long run (and it has been an
<b>extremely</b> long run)? And why have the economically dominant class
generally also been the ones to control the state? After all, if there are
no class interests or conflict then why has the property owning classes
always sought state aid to skew the economy in its interests? If the classes
<b>did</b> have harmonious interests then they would have no need to bolster
their position nor would they seek to. Yet state policy has always reflected the
needs of the property-owning elite -- subject to pressures from below, of course
(as Rothbard rather lamely notes, without pondering the obvious implications,
the <i>"peasantry and the urban labourers and artisans were never able to control
the state apparatus and were therefore at the bottom of the state-organised
pyramid and exploited by the ruling groups."</i> [<b>Conceived in Liberty</b>,
vol. 1, p. 260]). It is no coincidence that the working classes have not been
able to control the state nor that legislation is <i>"grossly the favourer of
the rich against the poor."</i> [William Godwin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 93] They
<b>are</b> the ones passing the laws, after all. This long and continuing
anti-labour intervention in the market does, though, place Rothbard's opinion
that government is a conspiracy against the superior man in a new light!
</p><p>
So when right-"libertarians" assert that there are <i>"harmony of interests"</i>
between classes in an unhampered market, anarchists simply reply by pointing out
that the very fact we have a "hampered" market shows that no such thing exists
within capitalism. It will be argued, of course, that the right-"libertarian"
is against state intervention for the capitalists (beyond defending their property
which is a significant use of state power in and of itself) and that their political
ideas aim to stop it. Which is true (and why a revolution would be needed to
implement it!). However, the very fact that the capitalist class has habitually
turned to the state to bolster its economic power is precisely the issue as it shows
that the right-"libertarian" harmony of interests (on which they place so much stress
as the foundation of their new order) simply does not exist. If it did, then the
property owning class would never have turned to the state in the first place nor
would it have tolerated "certain" of its members doing so.
</p><p>
If there were harmony of interests between classes, then the bosses would not turn
to death squads to kill rebel workers as they have habitually done (and it should be
stressed that libertarian union organisers have been assassinated by bosses and
their vigilantes, including the lynching of IWW members and business organised death
squads against CNT members in Barcelona). This use of private and public violence
should not be surprising, for, at the very least, as Mexican anarchist Ricardo
Flores Magon noted, there can be no real fraternity between classes <i>"because the
possessing class is always disposed to perpetuate the economic, political, and
social system that guarantees it the tranquil enjoyment of its plunders, while
the working class makes efforts to destroy this iniquitous system."</i> [<b>Dreams
of Freedom</b>, p. 139]
</p><p>
Rothbard's obvious hatred of unions and strikes can be explained by his ideological
commitment to the <i>"harmony of interests."</i> This is because strikes and the need of
working class people to organise gives the lie to the doctrine of <i>"harmony of
interests"</i> between masters and workers that apologists for capitalism like Rothbard
suggested underlay industrial relations. Worse, they give credibility to the notion
that there exists opposed interests between classes. Strangely, Rothbard himself
provides more than enough evidence to refute his own dogmas when he investigates state
intervention on the market.
</p><p>
Every ruling class seeks to deny that it has interests separate from the people under
it. Significantly those who deny class struggle the most are usually those who practice
it the most (for example, Mussolini, Pinochet and Thatcher all proclaimed the end of
class struggle while, in America, the Republican-right denounces anyone who points
out the results of <b>their</b> class war on the working class as advocating
"class war"). The elite has long been aware, as Black Nationalist Steve Biko put it, that the
<i>"most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."</i>
Defenders of slavery and serfdom presented it as god's will and that the master's duty
was to treat the slave well just as the slave's duty was to obey (while, of course,
blaming the slave if the master did not hold up his side of the covenant). So every
hierarchical system has its own version of the <i>"harmony of interests"</i> position
and each hierarchical society which replaces the last mocks the previous incarnations
of it while, at the same time, solemnly announcing that <b>this</b> society truly does
have harmony of interests as its founding principle. Capitalism is no exception, with
many economists repeating the mantra that every boss has proclaimed from the dawn of
time, namely that workers and their masters have common interests. As usual, it is
worthwhile to quote Rothbard on this matter. He (rightly) takes to task a defender
of the slave master's version of <i>"harmony of interests"</i> and, in so doing, exposes
the role of economics under capitalism. To quote Rothbard:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The increasing alienation of the slaves and the servants led . . . the oligarchy to
try to win their allegiance by rationalising their ordeal as somehow natural, righteous,
and divine. So have tyrants always tried to dupe their subjects into approving -- or at
least remaining resigned to -- their fate . . . Servants, according to the emphatically
non-servant [Reverend Samuel] Willard, were duty-bound to revere and obey their masters,
to serve them diligently and cheerfully, and to be patient and submissive even to the
cruellest master. A convenient ideology indeed for the masters! . . . All the subjects
must do, in short, was to surrender their natural born gift of freedom and independence,
to subject themselves completely to the whims and commands of others, who could then be
blindly trusted to 'take care' of them permanently . . .
</p><p>
"Despite the myths of ideology and the threats of the whip, servants and slaves found
many ways of protest and rebellion. Masters were continually denouncing servants for
being disobedient, sullen, and lazy."</i> [<b>Conceived in Liberty</b>, vol. 2, pp. 18-19]
</p><p></blockquote>
Change Reverend Samuel Willard to the emphatically non-worker Professor Murray Rothbard
and we have a very succinct definition of the role his economics plays within capitalism.
There are differences. The key one was that while Willard wanted permanent servitude,
Rothbard sought a temporary form and allowed the worker to change masters. While Willard
turned to the whip and the state, Rothbard turned to absolute private property and the
capitalist market to ensure that workers had to sell their liberty to the boss class
(unsurprisingly, as Willard lived in an economy whose workers had access to land and tools
while in Rothbard's time the class monopolisation of the means of life was complete and
workers have little alternative but to sell their liberty to the owning class).
</p><p>
Rothbard did not seek to ban unions and strikes. He argued that his system of absolute
property rights would simply make it nearly impossible for unions to organise or for
any form of collective action to succeed. Even basic picketing would be impossible
for, as Rothbard noted many a time, the pavement outside the workplace would be owned by
the boss who would be as unlikely to allow picketing as he would allow a union. Thus we
would have private property and economic power making collective struggle <b>de facto</b>
illegal rather than the <b>de jure</b> illegality which the state has so enacted on
behalf of the capitalists. As he put it, while unions were <i>"theoretically compatible
with the existence of a purely free market"</i> he doubted that it would be possible
as unions relied on the state to be "neutral" and tolerate their activities as they
<i>"acquire almost all their power through the wielding of force, specifically
force against strike-beakers and against the property of employers."</i> [<b>The Logic of
Action II</b>, p. 41] Thus we find right-"libertarians" in favour of "defensive"
violence (i.e., that limited to defending the property and power of the capitalists
and landlords) while denouncing as violence any action of those subjected to it.
</p><p>
Rothbard, of course, allowed workers to leave their employment in order to seek
another job if they felt exploited. Yet for all his obvious hatred of unions and strikes,
Rothbard does not ask the most basic question -- if there is not clash of interests
between labour and capital then why do unions even exist and why do bosses always
resist them (often brutally)? And why has capital always turned to the state to
bolster its position in the labour market? If there were really harmony of interests
between classes then capital would not have turned repeatedly to the state to crush
the labour movement. For anarchists, the reasons are obvious as is why the bosses
always deny any clash of interests for <i>"it is to the interests of capital to keep
the workers from understanding that they are wage slaves. The 'identity of interest';
swindle is one of the means of doing it . . . All those who profit from wage slavery
are interested in keeping up the system, and all of them naturally try to prevent the
workers from understanding the situation."</i> [Berkman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 77]
</p><p>
Rothbard's vociferous anti-unionism and his obvious desire to make any form of
collective action by workers impossible in practice if not in law shows how
economics has replaced religion as a control mechanism. In any hierarchical
system it makes sense for the masters to indoctrinate the servant class with
such self-serving nonsense but only capitalists have the advantage that it
is proclaimed a "science" rather than, say, a religion. Yet even here, the parallels
are close. As Colin Ward noted in passing, the <i>"so-called Libertarianism
of the political Right"</i> is simply <i>"the worship of the market economy."</i>
[<b>Talking Anarchy</b>, p. 76] So while Willard appealed to god as the basis of his
natural order, Rothbard appeal to "science" was nothing of the kind given the ideological
apriorism of "Austrian" economics. As a particularly scathing reviewer of one of his
economics books rightly put it, the <i>"main point of the book is to show that
the never-never land of the perfectly free market economy represents the best of all
conceivable worlds giving maximum satisfaction to all participants. Whatever is, is
right in the free market . . . It would appear that Professor Rothbard's book is more
akin to systematic theology than economics . . . its real interest belongs to the
student of the sociology of religion."</i> [D.N. Winch, <b>The Economic Journal</b>,
vol. 74, No. 294, pp. 481-2]
</p><p>
To conclude, it is best to quote Emma Goldman's biting dismissal of the right-liberal
individualism that Rothbard's ideology is just another form of. She rightly attacked
that <i>"'rugged individualism' which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat
the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and
economic <b>laissez-faire</b>: the exploitation of the masses by classes by means of
trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit
. . . That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the strait-jacket of individuality
. . . This 'rugged individualism' has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern
slavery, the crassest class distinctions . . . 'Rugged individualism' has meant all
the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave
caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen' . . . [and] in whose name political
tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues while every aspiration
and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as . . .
evil in the name of that same individualism."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 112]
</p><p>
So, to conclude. Both the history and current practice of capitalism shows that there
can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society. Anyone who claims otherwise
has not been paying attention.
</p>
</body>
</html>
|