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 The Abolition of Work:
"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."
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:
"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."
These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic ideas. To quote one US Corporate Executive, "one man, one vote will result in the eventual failure of democracy as we know it." [L. Silk and D. Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business, pp. 189f]
This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are anti-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on the state. This is because "[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." [Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 46].
Capitalists call upon and support the state when it acts in their interests and when it supports their 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.
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]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 right 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" [Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270]
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, "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!" And as Bob Black notes, "Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. . . . [F]reedom means more than the right to change masters." [The Libertarian as Conservative]. That supporters of capitalism often claim that this "right" to change masters is the essence of "freedom" is a telling indictment of the capitalist notion of "liberty."
For anarchists, freedom means both "freedom from" and "freedom to."
"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 must 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.
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.
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 :
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 "[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." [quoted by Allan Engler, Apostles
of Greed, p. 68]
Or, as Chomsky puts it, supporters of capitalism do not understand "the
fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control,
including the control of the manager and the owner" [Feb. 14th, 1992
appearance on Pozner/Donahue].
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., authoritarian
traits are needed, the most important being the ability and willingness to
dominate others.
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 undemocratic, it is anti-democratic, because it
promotes the development of traits that make real democracy (and so a
libertarian society) impossible.
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, not horizontal co-operation). Instead he concentrates
on the decision of a worker to sell their labour to a specific boss
and so ignores the lack of freedom within such contracts. He argues that
"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." [Capitalism and Freedom, pp. 14-15]
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 "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."
[Op. Cit., p. 13] Under capitalism (or the "complex" economy) Friedman
states that "individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter
into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly
voluntary." [Op. Cit., p. 14]
A moments thought, however, shows that capitalism is not based on "strictly
voluntary" transactions as Friedman claims. This is because the proviso
that is required to make every transaction "strictly voluntary" is not
freedom not to enter any particular exchange, but freedom not to enter
into any exchange at all.
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 particular exchange is
enough and so, only by changing his own requirements, can he claim
that capitalism is based upon freedom.
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.
Capitalist apologists are able to convince some people that capitalism is
"based on freedom" only because the system has certain superficial
appearances of freedom.
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, "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" [Bob Black, The
Libertarian as Conservative]. Under capitalism, workers have only the
Hobson's choice of being governed/exploited or living on the street.
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 below).
The picture painted by Walter Reuther of working life in America before
the Wagner act is a commentary on class inequality : "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." 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.
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:
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.
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 gives 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, "freedoms are not given, they are taken" [Peter
Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, 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.
Murray Rothbard, a leading "libertarian" capitalist, claims that capitalism
is based on the "basic axiom" of "the right to self-ownership."
This "axiom"
is defined as "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."
[For a New Liberty, pp. 26-27]
So far, so good. However, we reach a problem once we consider private
property. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for "free market" capitalism argued,
"there can be no such thing as the right to unrestricted freedom of speech
(or of action) on someone else's property" [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,
p. 258]. Or, as is commonly said by capitalist owners, "I don't pay you to
think."
Similarly, capitalists don't pay their employees to perform the other "vital
activities" 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 "vital activities" on company time will be
"hampered" by "coercive molestation." Therefore wage labour (the basis of
capitalism) in practice denies the rights associated with "self-ownership,"
thus alienating the individual from his or her basic rights. Or as Michael
Bakunin expresses it, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a
given time" under capitalism.
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
institutionalised power and coercive authority through hierarchy. As
Noam Chomsky writes, capitalism is based on "a particular form of
authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private
ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of
domination." When "property" is purely what you, as an individual, use
(i.e. possession) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however,
"property" rights no longer coincide with use rights, and so they become
a denial of freedom and a source of authority and power over the
individual. Little wonder that Proudhon labelled property as "theft" and
"despotism".
As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (section A.2.8 and B.1), all
forms of authoritarian control depend on "coercive molestation" -- 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:
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 give up
when they are employed. But since these rights, according to Rothbard,
are the products of humans as humans, wage labour alienates them from
themselves, exactly as it does the individual's labour power and
creativity.
To quote Chomsky again, "people can survive, [only] by renting themselves
to it [capitalist authority], and basically in no other way. . . ." You do
not sell your skills, as these skills are part of you. Instead, what
you have to sell is your time, your labour power, and so yourself.
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).
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.
Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary"
undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to
past 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 The Capitalist World System
(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, "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."
[Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 187]
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:
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 do 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 employers as well, meaning that the number of
self-employed workers is even smaller!). Hence for the vast majority,
the labour market is their only option.
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:
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general,
you have to work for someone. This is because of past "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
specific 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.
As Karl Polanyi puts it:
"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."
[The Great Transformation, p. 176]
(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
"who lost their jobs had to redeploy fast or starve (and even this feature of the
ninetheenth century economy. . . did not prevent prolonged recessions)" [Keynes
in the 1990s, 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 section C.9).
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.
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).
The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures
that "employers have a structural advantage in the labour market, because
there are typically more candidates. . . than jobs for them to fill." This
means that "[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." [Juliet B. Schor, The
Overworked American, 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.
As Bakunin argued, "the property owners... are likewise forced to seek out
and purchase labour... but not in the same measure . . . [there is no] equality
between those who offer their labour and those who purchase it." [Op. Cit.,
p. 183] This ensures that any "free agreements" made benefit the capitalists more
than the workers (see the next section
on periods of full employment, when conditions tilt in favour of working people).
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:
How little things have changed.
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.
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 (What causes the capitalist business cycle?
) 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.
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.
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 labour 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.
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
capitalist production itself!).
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 "an excess of democracy." 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 humans, not
as commodities embodying labour power. This naturally had devastating
effects on capitalist and statist authority: "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".
This loosening of the bonds of compulsion and obedience led to "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."
Such an "excess" 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 "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." 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 "inherently undemocratic."
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 "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." Instead, as
thinking and feeling people, they act to reclaim their freedom and humanity.
As noted at the beginning of this section, the economic effects of such
periods of empowerment and revolt are discussed in section C.7. We will
end by quoting the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who noted that a
continuous capitalist boom would not be in the interests of the ruling
class. In 1943, in response to the more optimistic Keynesians, he noted
that "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'" because "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."
[cited by Malcolm C. Sawyer, The Economics of Michal Kalecki p. 139,
p. 138]
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 not "natural"). Kalecki, we must
point out, also correctly predicted the rise of "a powerful bloc" between
"big business and the rentier interests" against full employment and that
"they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the
situation was manifestly unsound." The resulting "pressure of all these
forces, and in particular big business" would "induce the Government to
return to. . . orthodox policy." [Kalecki, cited Op. Cit., 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.
So, although detrimental to profit-making, periods of recession and high
unemployment are not only unavoidable but are necessary to capitalism in
order to "discipline" workers and "teach them a lesson." And in all, it
is little wonder that capitalism rarely produces periods approximating
full employment -- they are not in its interests (see also section
C.9).
The dynamics of capitalism makes recession and unemployment inevitable,
just as it makes class struggle (which creates these dynamics) inevitable.
Its ironic that supporters of laissez-faire capitalism, such as
"Libertarians" and "anarcho"-capitalists, should claim that they want to
be "left alone," since capitalism never allows this. As Max Stirner
expressed it: "Restless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a
calm enjoyment. We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . . ."
[Max Stirner The Ego and Its Own, p. 268].
Capitalism cannot let us "take breath" simply because it needs to grow or
die, which puts constant pressure on both workers and capitalists (see
D.4.1). Workers can never relax or
be free of anxiety about losing their
jobs, because if they don't work, they don't eat, nor can they ensure that
their children will get a better life. Capitalists themselves cannot relax
because they must ensure their workers' productivity rises faster than
their workers' wages, otherwise their business will fail (see sections
C.2 and C.3).
This means that every company has to innovate or be left
behind, to be put out of business or work. And since unpaid labour is
the key to capitalist expansion, work must continue to exist and grow.
These facts, combined with the authority relations associated with private
property and relentless competition, ensures that the desire to be
"left alone" cannot be satisfied under capitalism.
As Murray Bookchin observes, "[d]espite 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.'" ["Communalism: The Democratic
Dimension of Anarchism", p. 4, Democracy and Nature no. 8, pp. 1 - 17]
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 countertendency
toward radicalisation and rebellion among any oppressed people
(see section J).
B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom?
"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." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 280]
"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 all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept
the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is,
after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the
'coercion' is objectionable." [quoted by Engler, Op. Cit., p. 101]
B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership?
"[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 not 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."
B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!
"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." [quoted by
Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, p. 186]
"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 right 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." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187-8]
"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." [Wealth of
Nations, pp. 59-60]
B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour?
B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!