File: secF3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
  • size: 12,256 kB
  • ctags: 618
  • sloc: makefile: 12
file content (1023 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 72,560 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
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>