File: secB4.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 9.5-1
  • links: PTS
  • area: main
  • in suites: woody
  • size: 12,192 kB
  • ctags: 493
  • sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (909 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 56,724 bytes parent folder | download
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
<html>
<head>
<title>B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?</h1>
<p>
Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The owner
determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and therefore
exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is exercised over one's 
self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of 
coercive authority. As Bob Black points out in <b>The Abolition of Work</b>: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"The liberals and
conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and
hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an
office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a
part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to
do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is
free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels
like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a
few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you
spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every
employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker
is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you
for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've
described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the
vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For
certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or
capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are
factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are
'free' is lying or stupid."</i>
</blockquote><p>
Unlike a company, the democratic state can be influenced by its citizens,
who are able to act in ways that limit (to some extent) the power of the
ruling elite to be "left alone" to enjoy their power. As a result, the
wealthy hate the democratic aspects of the state, and its ordinary
citizens, as potential threats to their power. This "problem" was noted
by Alexis de Tocqueville in early 19th-century America: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"It is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain 
a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The
populace is at once the object of their scorn and their fears."</i> 
</blockquote><p>
These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic ideas. 
To quote one US Corporate Executive, <i>"one man, one vote will result in the 
eventual failure of democracy as we know it."</i> [L. Silk and D. Vogel, <b>Ethics 
and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business</b>, pp. 189f]
<p>
This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are
<b>anti</b>-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on
the state. This is because <i>"[classical] Liberalism, is in theory a kind
of anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom
is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at
government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions
and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves, but
it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for
without the gendarme the property owner could not exist."</i> [Errico
Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 46].
<p>
Capitalists call upon and support the state when it acts in <b>their</b>
interests and when it supports <b>their</b> authority and power. The "conflict"
between state and capital is like two gangsters fighting over the proceeds 
of a robbery: they will squabble over the loot and who has more power in 
the gang, but they need each other to defend their "property" against 
those from whom they stole it. 
<p>
The statist nature of private property can be seen in "Libertarian" (i.e.
minarchist, or "classical" liberal) works representing the extremes of
laissez-faire capitalism: <I>
<p><blockquote>
"[I]f one starts a private town, on land whose
acquisition did not and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of
non-aggression], persons who chose to move there or later remain there
would have no <b>right</b> to a say in how the town was run, unless it was
granted to them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner
had established"</i> [Robert Nozick, <b>Anarchy, State and Utopia</b>, p. 270]
</blockquote><p>
This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. Of course, it can be claimed
that "market forces" will result in the most liberal owners being the most
successful, but a nice master is still a master. To paraphrase Tolstoy,
<i>"the liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey owner. He will do everything
for the donkey -- care for it, feed it, wash it. Everything except get off
its back!"</i> And as Bob Black notes, <i>"Some people giving orders and others
obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. . . . [F]reedom means
more than the right to change masters."</i> [<b>The Libertarian as
Conservative</b>]. That supporters of capitalism often claim that this
"right" to change masters <b>is</b> the essence of "freedom" is a telling
indictment of the capitalist notion of "liberty." 
<p>
<a name="secb41"><h2>B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom?</h2>
<p>
For anarchists, freedom means both <i>"freedom from"</i> and <i>"freedom to."</i>
"Freedom from" signifies not being subject to domination, exploitation,
coercive authority, repression, or other forms of degradation and
humiliation. "Freedom to" means being able to develop and express one's
abilities, talents, and potentials to the fullest possible extent
compatible with the maximum freedom of others. Both kinds of freedom
imply the need for self-management, responsibility, and independence,
which basically means that people have a say in the decisions that affect
their lives. And since individuals do not exist in a social vacuum, it
also means that freedom <b>must</b> take on a collective aspect, with the
associations that individuals form with each other (e.g. communities, work
groups, social groups) being run in a manner which allows the individual
to participate in the decisions that the group makes. Thus freedom for
anarchists requires participatory democracy, which means face-to-face
discussion and voting on issues by the people affected by them. 
<p>
Are these conditions of freedom met in the capitalist system? Obviously
not. Despite all their rhetoric about "democracy," most of the "advanced"
capitalist states remain only superficially democratic -- and this because
the majority of their citizens are employees who spend about half their
waking hours under the thumb of capitalist dictators (bosses) who allow
them no voice in the crucial economic decisions that affect their lives
most profoundly and require them to work under conditions inimical to
independent thinking. If the most basic freedom, namely freedom to think
for oneself, is denied, then freedom itself is denied. 
<p>
The capitalist workplace is profoundly undemocratic. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky
points out, the oppressive authority relations in the typical corporate
hierarchy would be called fascist or totalitarian if we were referring to a
political system. In his words : 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"There's nothing individualistic about corporations. These are big 
conglomerate institutions, essentially totalitarian in character, but 
hardly individualistic. There are few institutions in human society that 
have such strict hierarchy and top-down control as a business organisation.
Nothing there about 'don't tread on me`. You're being tread on all the
time."</i> [<b>Keeping the Rabble in Line</b>, p. 280] 
</blockquote><p>
Far from being "based on freedom," then, capitalism actually destroys
freedom. In this regard, Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of
Sears, spoke plainly when he said <i>"[w]e stress the advantages of the free
enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state, but... we
have created more or less of a totalitarian system in industry,
particularly in large industry."</i> [quoted by Allan Engler, <b>Apostles
of Greed</b>, p. 68]
<p>
Or, as Chomsky puts it, supporters of capitalism do not understand <i>"the 
<b>fundamental</b> doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, 
including the control of the manager and the owner"</i> [Feb. 14th, 1992 
appearance on <b>Pozner/Donahue</b>].
<p>
Under corporate authoritarianism, the psychological traits deemed most
desirable for average citizens to possess are efficiency, conformity,
emotional detachment, insensitivity, and unquestioning obedience to
authority -- traits that allow people to survive and even prosper as
employees in the company hierarchy. And of course, for "non-average"
citizens, i.e., bosses, managers, administrators, etc., <b>authoritarian</b>
traits are needed, the most important being the ability and willingness to 
dominate others. 
<p>
But all such master/slave traits are inimical to the functioning of real 
(i.e. participatory/libertarian) democracy, which requires that citizens 
have qualities like flexibility, creativity, sensitivity, understanding,
emotional honesty, directness, warmth, realism, and the ability to
mediate, communicate, negotiate, integrate and co-operate. Therefore,
capitalism is not only <b>un</b>democratic, it is <b>anti</b>-democratic, because it
promotes the development of traits that make real democracy (and so a
libertarian society) impossible.
<p>
Many capitalist apologists have attempted to show that capitalist 
authority structures are "voluntary" and are, therefore, somehow not a
denial of individual and social freedom. Milton Friedman (a leading free 
market capitalist economist) has attempted to do just this. Like most
apologists for capitalism he ignores the authoritarian relations explicit
within wage labour (within the workplace, "co-ordination" is based upon
top-down command, <b>not</b> horizontal co-operation). Instead he concentrates
on the decision of a worker to sell their labour to a <b>specific</b> boss 
and so ignores the lack of freedom within such contracts. He argues that 
<i>"individuals are effectively free to enter or not enter into any particular 
exchange, so every transaction is strictly voluntary. . . The employee is 
protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for 
whom he can work."</i> [<b>Capitalism and Freedom</b>, pp. 14-15]
<p>
Friedman, to prove the free nature of capitalism, compares capitalism with
a simple exchange economy based upon independent producers. He states 
that in such a simple economy each household <i>"has the alternative of producing
directly for itself, [and so] it need not enter into any exchange unless 
it benefits from it. Hence no exchange will take place unless both parties
do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without coercion."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 13] Under capitalism (or the <i>"complex"</i> economy) Friedman 
states that <i>"individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter
into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly 
voluntary."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 14]
<p>
A moments thought, however, shows that capitalism is not based on <i>"strictly 
voluntary"</i> transactions as Friedman claims. This is because the proviso 
that is required to make every transaction <i>"strictly voluntary"</i> is <b>not</b> 
freedom not to enter any <b>particular</b> exchange, but freedom not to enter 
into any exchange <b>at all.</b> 
<p>
This, and only this, was the proviso that proved the simple model 
Friedman presents (the one based upon artisan production) to be voluntary 
and non-coercive; and nothing less than this would prove the complex model 
(i.e. capitalism) is voluntary and non-coercive. But Friedman is clearly 
claiming above that freedom not to enter into any <b>particular</b> exchange is 
enough and so, <b>only by changing his own requirements,</b> can he claim 
that capitalism is based upon freedom.
<p>
It is easy to see what Friedman has done, but it is less easy to excuse 
it (particularly as it is so commonplace in capitalist apologetics). He 
moved from the simple economy of exchange between independent producers to 
the capitalist economy without mentioning the most important thing the 
distinguishes them - namely the separation of labour from the means of 
production. In the society of independent producers, the worker had the
choice of working for themselves - under capitalism this is not the case. 
Capitalism is based upon the existence of a labour force without its
own sufficient capital, and therefore without a choice as to whether to
put its labour in the market or not. Milton Friedman would agree that
where there is no choice there is coercion. His attempted demonstration
that capitalism co-ordinates without coercion therefore fails.
<p>
Capitalist apologists are able to convince some people that capitalism is
"based on freedom" only because the system has certain superficial
<b>appearances</b> of freedom. 
<p>
On closer analysis these appearances turn out to be deceptions. For 
example, it is claimed that the employees of capitalist firms have freedom 
because they can always quit. But, as noted earlier, <i>"Some people giving 
orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. Of course, 
as [right-Libertarians] smugly [observe], 'one can at least change jobs,' but 
you can't avoid having a job -- just as under statism one can at least change
nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one nation-state or another. 
But freedom means more than the right to change masters"</i> [Bob Black, <b>The 
Libertarian as Conservative</b>]. Under capitalism, workers have only the 
Hobson's choice of being governed/exploited or living on the street. 
<p>
Anarchists point out that for choice to be real, free agreements and
associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into
them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social
relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because
private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social
hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination, as was
recognised even by Adam Smith (see <a href="secB4.html#secb43">below</a>). 
<p>
The picture painted by Walter Reuther of working life in America before
the Wagner act is a commentary on class inequality : <i>"Injustice was as
common as streetcars. When men walked into their jobs, they left their
dignity, their citizenship and their humanity outside. They were required
to report for duty whether there was work or not. While they waited on the
convenience of supervisors and foremen they were unpaid. They could be
fired without a pretext. They were subjected to arbitrary, senseless rules.
. . .Men were tortured by regulations that made difficult even going to
the toilet. Despite grandiloquent statements from the presidents of huge
corporations that their door was open to any worker with a complaint,
there was no one and no agency to which a worker could appeal if he were
wronged. The very idea that a worker could be wronged seemed absurd to the
employer."</i> Much of this indignity remains, and with the globalisation of
capital, the bargaining position of workers is further deteriorating, so
that the gains of a century of class struggle are in danger of being lost. 
<p>
A quick look at the enormous disparity of power and wealth between the
capitalist class and the working class shows that the benefits of the
"agreements" entered into between the two sides are far from equal. Walter
Block, a leading Fraser Institute ideologue, makes clear the differences
in power and benefits when discussing sexual harassment in the workplace:
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a
secretary and a boss. . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not 
a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the
secretary agrees to <b>all</b> aspects of the job when she agrees to accept 
the job, and especially when she agrees to <b>keep</b> the job. The office is,
after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the
'coercion' is objectionable."</i> [quoted by Engler, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 101]
</blockquote><p>
The primary goal of the Fraser Institute is to convince people that all
other rights must be subordinated to the right to enjoy wealth. In this
case, Block makes clear that under private property, only bosses have
"freedom to," and most also desire to ensure they have "freedom from"
interference with this right. 
<p>
So, when capitalists gush about the "liberty" available under capitalism,
what they are really thinking of is their state-protected freedom to
exploit and oppress workers through the ownership of property, a freedom
that allows them to continue amassing huge disparities of wealth, which in
turn insures their continued power and privileges. That the capitalist
class in liberal-democratic states <b>gives</b> workers the right to change
masters (though this is not true under state capitalism) is far from
showing that capitalism is based on freedom, For as Peter Kropotkin
rightly points out, <i>"freedoms are not given, they are taken"</i> [Peter
Kropotkin, <b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 43]. In capitalism, you are "free" 
to do anything you are permitted to do by your masters, which amounts 
to "freedom" with a collar and leash.
<p>
<a name="secb42"><h2>B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership? </h2>
<p>
Murray Rothbard, a leading "libertarian" capitalist, claims that capitalism 
is based on the <i>"basic axiom"</i> of <i>"the right to self-ownership."</i> 
This <i>"axiom"</i> 
is defined as <i>"the absolute right of each man [sic]. . .to control [his or 
her] body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, 
learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and
flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man [sic] the right to perform
these vital activities without being hampered by coercive molestation."</i>
[<b>For a New Liberty</b>, pp. 26-27]
<p>
So far, so good. However, we reach a problem once we consider private
property. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for "free market" capitalism argued, 
<i>"there can be no such thing as the right to unrestricted freedom of speech 
(or of action) on someone else's property"</i> [<b>Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal</b>, 
p. 258]. Or, as is commonly said by capitalist owners, "I don't pay you to
<b>think.</b>" 
<p>
Similarly, capitalists don't pay their employees to perform the other <i>"vital 
activities"</i> listed by Rothbard (learning, valuing, choosing ends and means) 
-- unless, of course, the firm requires that workers undertake such activities 
in the interests of company profits. Otherwise, workers can rest assured that 
any efforts to engage in such <i>"vital activities"</i> on company time <b>will</b> be 
<i>"hampered"</i> by <i>"coercive  molestation."</i> Therefore wage labour (the basis of 
capitalism) in practice <b>denies</b> the rights associated with "self-ownership," 
thus alienating the individual from his or her basic rights. Or as Michael 
Bakunin expresses it, <i>"the worker sells his person and his liberty for a 
given time"</i> under capitalism. 
<p>
In a society of relative equals, "private property" would not be a source
of power. For example, you would still be able to fling a drunk out of
your home. But in a system based on wage labour (i.e. capitalism), 
private property is a different thing altogether, becoming a source of
<b>institutionalised</b> power and coercive authority through hierarchy. As
Noam Chomsky writes, capitalism is based on <i>"a <b>particular form</b> of
authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private
ownership and control, which is an <b>extremely</b> rigid system of 
domination."</i> When "property" is purely what you, as an individual, use
(i.e. <b>possession</b>) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however,
"property" rights no longer coincide with <b>use</b> rights, and so they become
a <b>denial</b> of freedom and a source of authority and power over the
individual. Little wonder that Proudhon labelled property as <i>"theft"</i> and
<i>"despotism"</i>. 
<p>
As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (section <a href="secA2.html#seca28">A.2.8</a> and <a href="secB1.html">B.1</a>), all 
forms of authoritarian control depend on <i>"coercive molestation"</i> -- i.e. 
the use or threat of sanctions. This is definitely the case in company
hierarchies under capitalism. Bob Black describes the authoritarian
nature of capitalism as follows: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"[T]he place where [adults] pass the
most time and submit to the closest control is at work. Thus . . . it's
apparent that the source of the greatest direct duress experienced by the
ordinary adult is <b>not</b> the state but rather the business that employs
him. Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week
than the police do in a decade."</i> 
</blockquote><p>
We have already noted the objection that people can leave their jobs,
which just amounts to saying "love it or leave it!" and does not address
the issue at hand. Needless to say, the vast majority of the population
cannot avoid wage labour. Far from being based on the "right to
self-ownership," then, capitalism denies it, alienating the individual
from such basic rights as free speech, independent thought, and
self-management of one's own activity, which individuals have to <b>give up</b>
when they are employed. But since these rights, according to Rothbard,
are the products of humans <b>as</b> humans, wage labour alienates them from
themselves, exactly as it does the individual's labour power and
creativity.
<p>
To quote Chomsky again, <i>"people can survive, [only] by renting themselves
to it [capitalist authority], and basically in no other way. . . ."</i> You do
not sell your skills, as these skills are <b>part</b> of you. Instead, what
you have to sell is your <b>time</b>, your labour power, and so <b>yourself.</b> 
Thus under wage labour, rights of "self-ownership" are always placed below
property rights, the only "right" being left to you is that of finding
another job (although even this right is denied in some countries if the
employee owes the company money). 
<p>
So, contrary to Rothbard's claim, capitalism actually alienates the right
to self-ownership because of the authoritarian structure of the workplace,
which derives from private property. If we desire real self-ownership,
we cannot renounce it for most of our adult lives by becoming wage
slaves. Only workers' self-management of production, not capitalism, can
make self-ownership a reality.
<p>
<a name="secb43"><h2>B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!</h2>
 <p>
Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary" 
undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to 
<b>past</b> initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus 
the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now 
control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. As 
Immanuel Wallerstein points out in <b>The Capitalist World System</b> 
(vol. 1), capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using 
inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start 
factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally 
to conquest and forcible seizure. Thus denial of free access to the means 
of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes right." And 
as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, <i>"the means of life must be taken 
for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. 
To deny them to people is more than 'theft'... it is outright homicide."</i> 
[Murray Bookchin, <b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 187] 
 <p>
David Ellerman has also noted that the past use of force has resulted in 
the majority being limited to those options allowed to them by the powers 
that be:  
 <p><blockquote><i>
"It is a veritable mainstay of capitalist thought... that the moral flaws  
of chattel slavery have not survived in capitalism since the workers,  
unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary wage contracts.  
But it is only that, in the case of capitalism, the denial of natural  
rights is less complete so that the worker has a residual legal 
personality as a free 'commodity owner.' He is thus allowed to 
voluntarily put his own working life to traffic. When a robber denies 
another person's right to make an infinite number of other choices besides 
losing his money or his life and the denial is backed up by a gun, then 
this is clearly robbery even though it might be said that the victim 
making a 'voluntary choice' between his remaining options. When the legal 
system itself denies the natural rights of working people in the name of 
the prerogatives of capital, and this denial is sanctioned by the legal 
violence of the state, then the theorists of 'libertarian' capitalism do 
not proclaim institutional robbery, but rather they celebrate the 'natural 
liberty' of working people to choose between the remaining options of 
selling their labour as a commodity and being unemployed."</i> [quoted by  
Noam Chomsky, <b>The Chomsky Reader</b>, p. 186] 
 </blockquote><p>
Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker being 
separated from the means of production. The natural basis of capitalism is 
wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but to sell their 
skills, labour and time to those who <b>do</b> own the means of production. In 
advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the working population are 
self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada - however,  
this figure includes <b>employers</b> as well, meaning that the number of  
self-employed <b>workers</b> is even smaller!). Hence for the vast majority,  
the labour market is their only option. 
 <p>
Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position of a 
serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is formally 
"free" and "equal" under the law:  
 <p><blockquote><i>
"Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf  
of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty 
for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this 
terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his 
family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful 
calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer. . . .The 
worker always has the <b>right</b> to leave his employer, but has he the means  
to do so?  No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He  
is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to  
the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical 
freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently 
it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the 
whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession 
of terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but 
compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief 
interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is 
real slavery."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, pp. 187-8] 
 </blockquote><p>
Obviously, a company cannot <b>force</b> you to work for them but, in general, 
you have to work for <b>someone</b>. This is because of <b>past</b> "initiation of  
force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective  
conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any 
<b>specific</b> labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from 
the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting 
"labour" market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class). 
So while we can usually pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general, 
cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the 
economy is tiny, which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty  
actually is). Of course, the ability to leave employment and seek it  
elsewhere is an important freedom. However, this freedom, like most  
freedoms under capitalism, is of limited use and hides a deeper  
anti-individual reality.  
 <p>
As Karl Polanyi puts it:  
 <blockquote><p><i>
"In human terms such a postulate [of a labour market] implied for the worker  
extreme instability of earnings, utter absence of professional standards,  
abject readiness to be shoved and pushed about indiscriminately, complete 
dependence on the whims of the market. [Ludwig Von] Mises justly argued 
that if workers 'did not act as trade unionists, but reduced their demands 
and changed their locations and occupations according to the labour 
market, they would eventually find work.' This sums up the position under 
a system based on the postulate of the commodity character of labour. It 
is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to 
what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to 
change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed."</i>  
[<b>The Great Transformation</b>, p. 176] 
 </blockquote><p>
(Although we should point out that von Mises argument that workers  
will "eventually" find work as well as being nice and vague -- how long 
is "eventually"?, for example -- is contradicted by actual experience. As the 
Keynesian economist Michael Stewart notes, in the nineteenth century workers 
<i>"who lost their jobs had to redeploy fast or starve (and even this feature of the 
ninetheenth century economy. . . did not prevent prolonged recessions)"</i> [<b>Keynes 
in the 1990s</b>, p. 31] Workers "reducing their demands" may actually worsen  
an economic slump, causing more unemployment in the short run and lengthening 
the length of the crisis. We address the issue of unemployment and workers  
"reducing their demands" in more detail in <a href="secC9.html">section C.9</a>). 
 <p>
It is sometimes argued that capital needs labour, so both have an equal 
say in the terms offered, and hence the labour market is based on "liberty."  
But for capitalism to be based on real freedom or on true free agreement,  
both sides of the capital/labour divide must be equal in bargaining power, 
otherwise any agreement would favour the most powerful at the expense 
of the other party. However, due to the existence of private property and 
the states needed to protect it, this equality is de facto impossible, regardless 
of the theory. This is because. in general, capitalists have three advantages  
on the "free" labour market-- the law and state placing the rights of property  
above those of labour, the existence of unemployment over most of the  
business cycle and capitalists having more resources to fall back on. We  
will discuss each in turn. 
 <p>
The first advantage, namely property owners having the backing of the 
law and state, ensures that when workers go on strike or use other forms 
of direct action (or even when they try to form a union) the capitalist has 
the full backing of the state to employ scabs, break picket lines or fire 
"the ring-leaders." This obviously gives employers greater power in their  
bargaining position, placing workers in a weak position (a position that 
may make them, the workers, think twice before standing up for their rights). 
<p> 
The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures 
that <i>"employers have a structural advantage in the labour market, because  
there are typically more candidates. . . than jobs for them to fill."</i> This 
means that <i>"[c]ompetition in labour markets us typically skewed in favour 
of employers: it is a buyers market. And in a buyer's market, it is the 
sellers who compromise. Competition for labour is not strong enough to 
ensure that workers' desires are always satisified."</i> [Juliet B. Schor, <b>The  
Overworked American</b>, p. 71, p. 129] If the labour market generally favours 
the employer, then this obviously places working people at a disadvantage  
as the threat of unemployment and the hardships associated with encourages  
workers to take any job and submit to their bosses demands and power  
while employed. Unemployment, in other words, serves to discipline labour.  
The higher the prevailing unemployment rate, the harder it is to find a new job,  
which raises the cost of job loss and makes it less likely for workers to strike,  
join unions, or to resist employer demands, and so on.  
 <p>
As Bakunin argued, <i>"the property owners... are <b>likewise</b> forced to seek out  
and purchase labour... <b>but not in the same measure</b> . . . [there is no] equality  
between those who offer their labour and those who purchase it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,  
p. 183] This ensures that any "free agreements" made benefit the capitalists more  
than the workers (see the <a href="secB4.html#secb44">next section</a> 
on periods of full employment, when conditions tilt in favour of working people).  
 <p>
Lastly, there is the issue of inequalities in wealth and so resources. The  
capitalist generally has more resources to fall back on during strikes and  
while waiting to find employees (for example, large companies with many 
factories can swap production to their other factories if one goes on strike).  
And by having more resources to fall back on, the capitalist can hold out  
longer than the worker, so placing the employer in a stronger bargaining  
position and so ensuring labour contracts favour them. This was recognised  
by Adam Smith: 
 <p><blockquote><i>
 "It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers and capitalists]  
must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the other into a compliance with their  
terms... In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer... though they  
did not employ a single workman [the masters] could generally live a year  
or two upon the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not  
subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year without  
employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master 
as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate. . . [I]n disputes 
with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage."</i> [<b>Wealth of  
Nations</b>, pp. 59-60] 
 </blockquote><p>
How little things have changed. 
 <p>
So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for them, the 
capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell your liberty and 
labour on the "free market." Not only this, but the labour market (which is what 
makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so 
ensuring that any "free agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in 
the workers submitting to domination and exploitation. This is why anarchists 
support collective organisation (such as unions) and resistance (such as strikes),  
direct action and solidarity to make us as, if not more, powerful than our exploiters 
and win important reforms and improvements (and, ultimately, change society),  
even when faced with the disadvantages on the labour market we have indicated.  
The despotism associated with property (to use Proudhon's expression) is resisted  
by those subject to it and, needless to say, the boss does not always win. 
<p>
<a name="secb44"><h2>B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour? </h2>
<p>
Of course there are periods when the demand for labour exceeds supply, but
these periods hold the seeds of depression for capitalism, as workers are
in an excellent position to challenge, both individually and collectively,
their allotted role as commodities. This point is discussed in more detail
in section C.7 (<a href="secC7.html">What causes the capitalist business cycle?
</a>) and so we will
not do so here. For now it's enough to point out that during normal times
(i.e. over most of the business cycle), capitalists often enjoy extensive 
authority over workers, an authority deriving from the unequal bargaining 
power between capital and labour, as noted by Adam Smith and many others.
<p>
However, this changes during times of high demand for labour. To illustrate,
let us assume that supply and demand approximate each other. It is clear 
that such a situation is only good for the worker. Bosses cannot easily 
fire a worker as there is no one to replace them and the workers, 
either collectively by solidarity or individually by "exit" (i.e. quitting 
and moving to a new job), can ensure a boss respects their interests and, 
indeed, can push these interests to the full. The boss finds it hard to 
keep their authority intact or from stopping wages rising and causing a 
profits squeeze. In other words, as unemployment drops, workers power 
increases.
<p>
Looking at it another way, giving someone the right to hire and fire an 
input into a production process vests that individual with considerable 
power over that input unless it is costless for that input to move; that 
is unless the input is perfectly mobile. This is only approximated in 
real life for labour during periods of full employment, and so perfect
mobility of <b>labour</b> costs problems for a capitalist firm because under
such conditions workers are not dependent on a particular capitalist and 
so the level of worker effort is determined far more by the decisions of 
workers (either collectively or individually) than by managerial authority. 
The threat of firing cannot be used as a threat to increase effort, and 
hence production, and so full employment increases workers power.
<p>
With the capitalist firm being a fixed commitment of resources, this
situation is intolerable. Such times are bad for business and so occur
rarely with free market capitalism (we must point out that in neo-classical 
economics, it is assumed that all inputs - including capital - are 
perfectly mobile and so the theory ignores reality and assumes away 
<b>capitalist production</b> itself!). 
<p>
During the last period of capitalist boom, the post-war period, we can see
the breakdown of capitalist authority and the fear this held for the
ruling elite. The Trilateral Commission's 1975 report, which attempted to
"understand" the growing discontent among the general population, makes
our point well. In periods of full employment, according to the report,
there is <i>"an excess of democracy."</i> In other words, due to the increased
bargaining power workers gained during a period of high demand for labour,
people started thinking about and acting upon their needs as <b>humans,</b> not
as commodities embodying labour power. This naturally had devastating
effects on capitalist and statist authority: <i>"People no longer felt the
same compulsion to obey those whom they had previously considered superior
to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or talent"</i>. 
<p>
This loosening of the bonds of compulsion and obedience led to <i>"previously
passive or unorganised groups in the population, blacks, Indians, Chicanos, 
white ethnic groups, students and women... embark[ing] on concerted efforts 
to establish their claims to opportunities, rewards, and privileges, which 
they had not considered themselves entitled to before."</i> 
<p>
Such an <i>"excess"</i> of participation in politics of course posed a serious
threat to the status quo, since for the elites who authored the report, 
it was considered axiomatic that <i>"the effective operation of a democratic
political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement 
on the part of some individuals and groups. . . . In itself, this marginality 
on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic, but it is also one 
of the factors which has enabled democracy to function effectively."</i> Such 
a statement reveals the hollowness of the establishment's concept of 
'democracy,' which in order to function effectively (i.e. to serve elite 
interests) must be <i>"inherently undemocratic."</i> 
<p>
Any period where people feel empowered allows them to communicate with
their fellows, identify their needs and desires, and resist those forces
that deny their freedom to manage their own lives. Such resistance
strikes a deadly blow at the capitalist need to treat people as commodities, 
since (to re-quote Polanyi) people no longer feel that it <i>"is not for the 
commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to what purpose 
it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to change hands, 
and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed."</i> Instead, as 
thinking and feeling people, they act to reclaim their freedom and humanity. 
<p>
As noted at the beginning of this section, the economic effects of such
periods of empowerment and revolt are discussed in section <a href="secC7.html">C.7</a>. We will
end by quoting the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who noted that a
continuous capitalist boom would <b>not</b> be in the interests of the ruling
class. In 1943, in response to the more optimistic Keynesians, he noted
that <i>"to maintain the high level of employment. . . in the subsequent
boom, a strong opposition of 'business leaders' is likely to be
encountered. . . lasting full employment is not at all to their liking.
The workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry' would
be anxious 'to teach them a lesson'"</i> because <i>"under a regime of permanent
full employment, 'the sack' would cease to play its role as a disciplinary
measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined and the self
assurance and class consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes
for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create 
political tension. . . 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' 
are more appreciated by business leaders than profits. Their class interest 
tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view 
and that unemployment is an integral part of the normal capitalist system."</i> 
[cited by Malcolm C. Sawyer, <b>The Economics of Michal Kalecki</b>  p. 139, 
p. 138]
<p>
Therefore, periods when the demand for labour outstrips supply are not
healthy for capitalism, as they allow people to assert their freedom and
humanity -- both fatal to the system. This is why news of large numbers of
new jobs sends the stock market plunging and why capitalists are so keen
these days to maintain a "natural" rate of unemployment (that it has to be
maintained indicates that it is <b>not</b> "natural"). Kalecki, we must
point out, also correctly predicted the rise of <i>"a powerful bloc"</i> between 
<i>"big business and the rentier interests"</i> against full employment and that 
<i>"they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the 
situation was manifestly unsound."</i> The resulting <i>"pressure of all these
forces, and in particular big business"</i> would <i>"induce the Government to
return to. . . orthodox policy."</i> [Kalecki, cited <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 140] This 
is exactly what happened in the 1970s, with the monetarists and other 
sections of the "free market" right providing the ideological support 
for the business lead class war, and whose "theories" (when applied) 
promptly generated massive unemployment, thus teaching the working class 
the required lesson. 
<p>
So, although detrimental to profit-making, periods of recession and high 
unemployment are not only unavoidable but are necessary to capitalism in 
order to <i>"discipline"</i> workers and <i>"teach them a lesson."</i> And in all, it 
is little wonder that capitalism rarely produces periods approximating
full employment -- they are <b>not</b> in its interests (see also section 
<a href="secC9.html">C.9</a>).
The dynamics of capitalism makes recession and unemployment inevitable,
just as it makes class struggle (which creates these dynamics) inevitable.
<p>
<a name="secb45"><h2>B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!</h2>
<p>
It is ironic that supporters of laissez-faire capitalism, such as
"Libertarians" and "anarcho"-capitalists, should claim that they 
want to be "left alone," since capitalism <b>never</b> allows this. As 
Max Stirner expressed it: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"Restless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm 
<b>enjoyment</b>. We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . ."</i>
[Max Stirner <b>The Ego and Its Own</b>, p. 268]
<p></blockquote>
Capitalism cannot let us <i>"take breath"</i> simply because it needs to 
grow or die, which puts constant pressure on both workers and 
capitalists (see <a href="secD4.html#secd41">section D.4.1</a>). 
Workers can never relax or be 
free of anxiety about losing their jobs, because if they do not 
work, they do not eat, nor can they ensure that  their children 
will get a better life. Within the workplace, they are not "left 
alone" by their bosses in order to manage their own activities. 
Instead, they are told what to do, when to do it and how to
do it. Indeed, the history of experiments in workers' control and
self-management within capitalist companies confirms our claims that,
for the worker, capitalism is incompatible with the desire to be
"left alone." As an illustration we will use the 
<i><b>"Pilot Program"</i></b> 
conducted by General Electric between 1968 and 1972.
<p>
General Electric proposed the "Pilot Program" as a means of overcoming
the problems they faced with introducing Numeric Control (N/C) machinery
into its plant at Lynn River Works, Massachusetts. Faced with rising
tensions on the shop floor, bottle-necks in production and low-quantity
products, GE management tried a scheme of <i>"job enrichment"</i> based
on workers' control of production in one area of the plant. By June
1970 the workers' involved were <i>"on their own"</i> (as one manager put
it) and <i>"[i]n terms of group job enlargement this was when the 
Pilot Project really began, with immediate results in increased
output and machine utilisation, and a reduction on manufacturing
losses. As one union official remarked two years later, 'The fact 
that we broke down a traditional policy of GE [that the union could 
never have a hand in managing the business] was in itself satisfying, 
especially when we could throw success up to them to boot.'"</i> [David 
Noble, <b>Forces of Production</b>, p. 295]
<p>
The project, after some initial scepticism, proved to be a great 
success with the workers involved. Indeed, other workers in the 
factory desired to be included and the union soon tried to get it 
spread throughout the plant and into other GE locations. The success 
of the scheme was that it was based on workers' managing their own
affairs rather than being told what to do by their bosses -- <i>"We
are human beings,"</i> said one worker, <i>"and want to be treated as
such."</i> [quoted by Noble, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 292] To be fully human means
to be free to govern oneself in all aspects of life, including
production.
<p>
However, just after a year of the workers being given control over
their working lives, management stopped the project. Why? <i>"In the
eyes of some management supporters of the 'experiment,' the Pilot
Program was terminated because management as a whole refused to
give up any of its traditional authority . . . [t]he Pilot 
Program foundered on the basic contradiction of capitalist
production: Who's running the shop?"</i> [Noble, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 318]
<p>
Noble goes on to argue that to GE's top management, <i>"the union's
desire to extend the program appeared as a step toward greater
workers control over production and, as such, a threat to the
traditional authority rooted in private ownership of the means
of production. Thus the decision to terminate represented a
defence not only of the prerogatives of production supervisors
and plant managers but also of the power vested in property
ownership."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>] Noble notes that this result was not an
isolated case and that the <i>"demise of the GE Pilot Program 
followed the typical pattern for such 'job enrichment experiments'"</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 320] Even though <i>"[s]everal dozen well-documented
experiments show that productivity increases and social problems
decrease when workers participant in the work decisions affecting
their lives"</i> [Department of Health, Education and Welfare study
quoted by Noble, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 322] such schemes are ended by
bosses seeking to preserve their own power, the power that flows
from private property.
<p>
As one worker in the GE Pilot Program stated, <i>"[w]e just want to
be left alone."</i> They were not -- capitalist social relations
prohibit such a possibility (as Noble correctly notes, <i>"the 'way
of life' for the management meant controlling the lives of others"</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 294 and p. 300]). In spite of improved productivity,
projects in workers' control are scrapped because they undermined 
both the power of the capitalists -- and by undermining their power, 
you potentially undermine their profits too (<i>"If we're all one, 
for manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably,
just like a co-op business."</i> [GE Pilot Program worker, quoted by
Noble, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 295]). 
<p>
As we argue in more detail in <a href="secJ5.html#secj512">
section J.5.12</a>, profit maximisation 
can work against efficiency, meaning that capitalism can harm the 
overall economy by promoting less efficient production techniques 
(i.e. hierarchical ones against egalitarian ones) because it is in 
the interests of capitalists to do so and the capitalist market 
rewards that behaviour. This is because, ultimately, profits are 
unpaid labour. If you empower labour, give workers' control over 
their work then they will increase efficiency and productivity 
(they know how to do their job the best) but you also erode 
authority structures within the workplace. Workers' will seek 
more and more control (freedom naturally tries to grow) and 
this, as the Pilot Program worker clearly saw, implies a
co-operative workplace in which workers', <b>not</b> managers, decide
what to do with the surplus produced. By threatening power, you
threaten profits (or, more correctly, who controls the profit and
where it goes). With the control over production <b>and</b> who gets
to control any surplus in danger, it is unsurprising that 
companies soon abandon such schemes and return to the old, 
less efficient, hierarchical schemes based on <i>"Do what you are 
told, for as long as you are told."</i> Such a regime is hardly fit
for free people and, as Noble notes, the regime that replaced 
the GE Pilot Program was <i>"designed to 'break' the pilots of their 
new found 'habits' of self-reliance, self-discipline, and 
self-respect."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 307]
<p>
Thus the experience of workers' control project within capitalist
firms indicates well that capitalism cannot <i>"leave you alone"</i> 
if you are a wage slave.
<p>
Moreover, capitalists themselves cannot relax because they must ensure 
their workers' productivity rises faster than their workers' wages, 
otherwise their business will fail (see sections 
<a href="secC2.html">C.2</a> and <a href="secC3.html">C.3</a>). This 
means that every company has to innovate or be left behind, to be 
put out of business or work. Hence the boss is not "left alone" -- 
their decisions are made under the duress of market forces, of the 
necessities imposed by competition on individual capitalists. Restless 
acquisition -- in this context, the necessity to accumulate capital 
in order to survive in the market -- always haunts the capitalist. 
And since unpaid labour is the key to capitalist expansion, work 
must continue to exist and grow -- necessitating the boss to control
the working hours of the worker to ensure that they produce more
goods than they receive in wages. The boss is not "left alone" nor
do they leave the worker alone.
<p>
These facts, based upon the authority relations associated with 
private property and relentless competition, ensure that the 
desire to be "left alone" cannot be satisfied under capitalism.
<p>
As Murray Bookchin observes:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Despite their assertions of autonomy and distrust of state authority
. . . classical liberal thinkers did not in the last instance hold to 
the notion that the individual is completely free from lawful guidance. 
Indeed, their interpretation of autonomy actually presupposed quite 
definite arrangements beyond the individual -- notably, the laws of 
the marketplace. Individual autonomy to the contrary, these laws 
constitute a social organising system in which all 'collections of
individuals' are held under the sway of the famous 'invisible hand' of
competition. Paradoxically, the laws of the marketplace override the
exercise of 'free will' by the same sovereign individuals who otherwise
constitute the "collection of individuals."</i> [<i>"Communalism: 
The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism"</i>, p. 4, 
<b>Democracy and Nature</b> no. 8, pp. 1-17]
<p></blockquote>
Human interaction is an essential part of life. Anarchism proposes 
to eliminate only undesired social interactions and authoritarian
impositions, which are inherent in capitalism and indeed in any
hierarchical form of socio-economic organisation (e.g. state socialism). 
Hermits soon become less than human, as social interaction enriches and
develops individuality. Capitalism may attempt to reduce us to hermits,
only "connected" by the market, but such a denial of our humanity and
individuality inevitably feeds the spirit of revolt. In practice the
"laws" of the market and the hierarchy of capital will never "leave one
alone," but instead, crush one's individuality and freedom. Yet this
aspect of capitalism conflicts with the human "instinct for freedom," 
as Noam Chomsky describes it, and hence there arises a counter-tendency 
toward radicalisation and rebellion among any oppressed people 
(see <a href="secJcon.html">section J</a>).
<p>
One last point. The desire to "be left alone" often expresses two 
drastically different ideas -- the wish to be your own master and
manage your own affairs and the desire by bosses and landlords to 
have more power over their property. However, the authority exercised 
by such owners over their property is also exercised over <b>those who 
use that property.</b> Therefore, the notion of "being left alone"
contains two contradictory aspects within a class ridden and
hierarchical society. Obviously anarchists are sympathetic to the
first, inherently libertarian, aspect -- the desire to manage your 
own life, in your own way -- but we reject the second aspect and
any implication that it is in the interests of the governed to 
leave those in power alone. Rather, it is in the interest of the
governed to subject those with authority over them to as much 
control as possible -- for obvious reasons.
<p>
Therefore, working people are more or less free to the extent that 
they <b>restrict</b> the ability of their bosses to be "left alone." One 
of the aims of anarchists within a capitalist society is 
<b>ensure</b> that 
those in power are <b>not</b> "left alone" to exercise their authority over 
those subject to it. We see solidarity, direct action and workplace and 
community organisation as a means of interfering with the authority of 
the state, capitalists and property owners until such time as we can 
destroy such authoritarian social relationships once and for all. 
<p>
Hence anarchist dislike of the term "laissez-faire" -- within a class
society it can only mean protecting the powerful against the working
class (under the banner of "neutrally" enforcing property rights and
so <b>the power derived from them</b>). However, we are well aware of the
other, libertarian, vision expressed in the desire to be "left alone."
That is the reason we have discussed why capitalist society can never 
actually achieve that desire -- it is handicapped by its hierarchical 
and competitive nature -- and how such a desire can be twisted into a
means of enhancing the power of the few over the many.
<p>

</body>
</html>