/usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secB4.html

<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><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> [<b>The Abolition of Work and other essays</b>, p. 21]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
In response to this, defenders of capitalism usually say something 
along the lines of <i>"It's a free market and if you don't like it, find 
another job."</i> Of course, there are a number of problems with this 
response. Most obviously is the fact that capitalism is not and has 
never been a "free market." As we noted in <a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>, a key role 
of the state has been to protect the interests of the capitalist
class and, as a consequence of this, it has intervened time and time 
again to skew the market in favour of the bosses. As such, to inform 
us that capitalism is something it has never been in order to defend 
it from criticism is hardly convincing. 
</p><p>
However, there is another more fundamental issue with the response, 
namely the assumption that tyranny is an acceptable form of human 
interaction. To say that your option is either tolerate this boss 
or seek out another (hopefully more liberal) one suggests an utter 
lack of understanding what freedom is. Freedom is not the opportunity 
to pick a master, it is to be have autonomy over yourself. What 
capitalist ideology has achieved is to confuse having the ability 
to pick a master with freedom, that consent equates to liberty -- 
regardless of the objective circumstances shaping the choices being 
made or the nature of the social relationships such choices produce.
</p><p>
While we return to this argument in 
<a href="secB4.html#secb43">section B.4.3</a>, a few words seem
appropriate now. To see why the capitalist response misses the point, 
we need only transfer the argument from the economic regime to the 
political. Let us assume a system of dictatorial states on an island. 
Each regime is a monarchy (i.e. a dictatorship). The King of each land
decrees what his subjects do, who they associate with and, moreover, 
appropriates the fruit of their labour in exchange for food, clothing 
and shelter for however many hours a day he wants (the King is generous 
and allows his subjects some time to themselves in the evening and 
weekends). Some of the Kings even decree what their subjects will wear 
and how they will greet their fellow subjects. Few people would say 
that those subject to such arrangements are free.
</p><p>
Now, if we add the condition that any subject is free to leave a Kingdom
but only if another King will let them join his regime, does that make
it any more freer? Slightly, but not by much. The subjects how have a
limited choice in who can govern them but the <b>nature</b> of the regime 
they are subjected to does not change. What we would expect to see 
happen is that those subjects whose skills are in demand will get 
better, more liberal, conditions than the others (as long as they are 
in demand). For the majority the conditions they are forced to accept 
will be as bad as before as they are easily replaceable. Both sets of 
subjects, however, are still under the autocratic rule of the monarchs. 
Neither are free but the members of one set have a more liberal regime 
than the others, dependent on the whims of the autocrats and their 
need for labour.
</p><p>
That this thought experiment reflects the way capitalism operates 
is clear. Little wonder anarchists have echoed Proudhon's complaint 
that <i>"our large capitalist associations [are] organised in the spirit 
of commercial and industrial feudalism."</i> [<b>Selected Writings of 
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 72] Ironically, rather than deny the
anarchist claim, defenders of capitalism have tried to convince us
that such a regime is liberty incarnate. Yet the statist nature of 
private property can be seen in (right-wing) "Libertarian" (i.e. 
"classical" liberal) works representing the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"[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><p>
This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. And, indeed, it was. Such 
private towns have existed, most notably the infamous company towns 
of US history. Howard Zinn summarises the conditions of such "private
towns" in the Colorado mine fields:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the company acting 
as lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law enforcement
officer paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's rules.
Curfews were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to
visit the homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold
in the camp. The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers
hired by the company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in 
the hands of those who held economic power. This meant that the
authority of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was
virtually supreme . . . Company officials were appointed as
election judges. Company-dominated coroners and judges prevented
injured employees from collecting damages."</i> [<b>The Colorado Coal 
Strike, 1913-14</b>, pp. 9-11]
</blockquote></p><p>
Unsurprisingly, when the workers rebelled against this tyranny, 
they were evicted from their homes and the private law enforcement
agents were extremely efficient in repressing the strikers: <i>"By
the end of the strike, most of the dead and injured were miners
and their families."</i> The strike soon took on the features of a 
war, with battles between strikers and their supporters and the 
company thugs. Ironically, when the National Guard was sent in 
to "restore order" the <i>"miners, having faced in the first five 
weeks of the strike what they considered a reign of terror at 
the hands of the private guards, . . . looked forward"</i> to their 
arrival. They <i>"did not know that the governor was sending these 
troops under pressure from the mine operators."</i> Indeed, the banks 
and corporations lent the state funds to pay for the militia. It
was these company thugs, dressed in the uniform of the state
militia, who murdered woman and children in the infamous Ludlow
Massacre of April 20th, 1914. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 22, p. 25, p. 35] 
</p><p>
Without irony the <b>New York Times</b> editorialised that the 
<i>"militia was as impersonal and impartial as the law."</i> The 
corporation itself hired Ivy Lee (<i>"the father of public 
relations in the United States"</i>) to change public opinion 
after the slaughter. Significantly, Lee produced a series of 
tracts labelled <i>"Facts Concerning the Struggle in Colorado for 
Industrial Freedom."</i> The head of the corporation (Rockefeller) 
portrayed his repression of the strikers as blow for workers'
freedom, to <i>"defend the workers' right to work."</i> [quoted by 
Zinn, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 44, p. 51 and p. 50] So much for the 
capitalism being the embodiment of liberty.
</p><p>
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 (and, of course, capitalism then was more "free market"
than today, suggesting that this is simply wishful thinking). 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. . . . But freedom means
more than the right to change masters."</i> [<i>The Libertarian as
Conservative</i>, <b>The Abolition of Work and other essays</b>, p. 147] 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><p>
Needless to say, the authoritarianism of capitalism is not limited to
the workplace. Capitalists seek to bolster their power within society
as a whole, via the state. 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. Any apparent "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 appropriate the goods and defend their "property" 
against those from whom they stole it. 
</p><p>
Unlike a company, however, 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><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><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><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 <b>gendarme</b> the property owner could not exist."</i> [Errico
Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 47]
</p><p>
We have discussed the state and how the ruling elite control in 
<a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a> and will not do so here. Nor we will discuss the ways
in which the elite use that state to enforce private property (see
<a href="secB3.html">section B.3</a>) or use the state to intervene in society (see <a href="secD1.html">section D.1</a>). Rather, the rest of this section will discuss how capitalism
impacts on freedom and autonomy and why the standard apologetics 
by defenders of capitalism fail.</p>

<a name="secb41"><h2>B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom?</h2></a>

<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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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>  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. 13 and p. 14]
</p><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><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><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 that 
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. 
For capitalist economists like Friedman, workers choose whether to work 
or not. The bosses must pay a wage to cover the "disutility" of labour. 
In reality, of course, most workers face the choice of working or
starvation/poverty. Capitalism is based upon the existence of a 
labour force without access to capital or land, and therefore without 
a choice as to whether to put its labour in the market or not. Friedman 
would, hopefully, agree that where there is no choice there is coercion. 
His attempted demonstration that capitalism co-ordinates without coercion 
therefore fails.
</p><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. 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. To requote Bob Black: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<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> [<i>"The 
Libertarian as Conservative"</i>, <b>The Abolition of Work and other essays</b>, p. 147] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Under capitalism, workers have only the 
Hobson's choice of being governed/exploited or living on the street. 
</p><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><p>
The picture painted by Walter Reuther (one time head of the US 
autoworkers' union)
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><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 ideologue of the Canadian right-libertarian "think-tank"
the Fraser Institute, makes clear the differences
in power and benefits when discussing sexual harassment in the workplace:
</p><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><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><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></a>

<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><p>
At first sight, this appears to sound reasonable. That we "own" 
ourselves and, consequently, we decide what we do with ourselves 
has an intuitive appeal. Surely this is liberty? Thus, in this
perspective, liberty <i>"is a condition in which a person's ownership 
rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are 
<b>not</b> invaded, are not aggressed against."</i> It also lends itself 
to contrasts with slavery, where one individual owns another and
<i>"the slave has little or no right to self-ownership; his person 
and his produce are systematically expropriated by his master 
by the use of violence."</i> [Rothbard, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 41] This means
that "self-ownership" can be portrayed as the opposite of slavery:
we have the dominion over ourselves that a slaveholder has over
their slave. This means that slavery is wrong because the slave
owner has stolen the rightful property of the slave, namely their
body (and its related abilities). This concept is sometimes expressed 
as people having a "natural" or "inalienable" right to own their 
own body and the product of their own labour.
</p><p>
Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not
convinced. That "self-ownership," like slavery, places issues of 
freedom and individuality within the context of private property
-- as such it shares the most important claim of slavery, namely 
that people can be objects of the rules of private property. 
It suggests an alienated perspective and, moreover, a fatal flaw 
in the dogma. This can be seen from how the axiom is used in 
practice. In as much as the term "self-ownership" is used simply 
as an synonym for "individual autonomy" anarchists do not have an 
issue with it. However, the "basic axiom" is not used in this way 
by the theorists of capitalism. Liberty in the sense of individual
autonomy is not what "self-ownership" aims to justify. Rather, 
it aims to justify the denial of liberty, not its exercise. It
aims to portray social relationships, primarily wage labour, in
which one person commands another as examples of liberty rather
than what they are, examples of domination and oppression. In 
other words, "self-ownership" becomes the means by which the 
autonomy of individuals is limited, if not destroyed, in the 
name of freedom and liberty.
</p><p>
This is exposed in the right-libertarian slogan <i>"human rights are
property rights."</i> Assuming this is true, it means that you can alienate 
your rights, rent them or sell them like any other kind of property. 
Moreover, if you have no property, you have no human rights as you
have no place to exercise them. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for 
"free market" capitalism stated, <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] If you 
are in someone else's property (say at work) you have no basic 
rights at all, beyond the right not to be harmed (a right bosses 
habitually violate anyway by ignoring health and safety issues). 
</p><p>
Self-ownership justifies this. You have rented out the property in your 
person (labour services) and, consequently, another person can tell 
you what to do, when to do and how to do it. Thus property comes into 
conflict with liberty. If you argue that <i>"human rights are property 
rights"</i> you automatically ensure that human rights are continually 
violated in practice simply because there is a conflict between 
property and liberty. This is not surprising, as the "property rights" 
theory of liberty was created to justify the denial of other people's 
liberty and the appropriation of their labour.
</p><p>
Clearly, then, we reach a problem with "self-ownership" (or property
in the person) once we take into account private property and its
distribution. In a nutshell, 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 expressed it, <i>"the worker sells 
his person and his liberty for a given time"</i> under capitalism. 
[<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 187] 
</p><p>
In a society of relative equals, "property" would not be a source 
of power as use would co-incidence with occupancy (i.e. private 
property would be replaced by possession). 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), 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. 
</p><p>
As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (sections 
<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><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> [<i>"The Libertarian as Conservative"</i>, <b>The Abolition 
of Work and other essays</b>, p. 145] 
</blockquote></p><p>
In developing nations, this control can easily been seen to be an
utter affront to human dignity and liberty. There a workplace is
often <i>"surrounded by barbed wire. Behind its locked doors . . . 
workers are supervised by guards who beat and humiliate them on
the slightest pretext . . . Each worker repeats the same action 
-- sewing on a belt loop, stitching a sleeve -- maybe two thousand
times a day. They work under painfully bright lights, for twelve-
to fourteen-hour shifts, in overheated factories, with too few
bathroom breaks, and restricted access to water (to reduce the 
need for more bathroom breaks), which is often foul and unfit 
for human consumption in any event."</i> The purpose is <i>"to maximise
the amount of profit that could be wrung out"</i> of the workers, 
with the <i>"time allocated to each task"</i> being calculated in <i>"units
of ten thousands of a second."</i> [Joel Bakan, <b>The Corporation</b>, 
pp. 66-7] While in the developed world the forms of control are, 
in general, nowhere as extreme (in thanks due to hard won labour
organising and struggle) the basic principle is the same. Only a 
sophist would argue that the workers "owned" themselves and 
abilities for the period in question -- yet this is what the
advocates of "self-ownership" do argue.
</p><p>
So if by the term "self-ownership" it is meant "individual autonomy"
then, no, capitalism is not based on it. Ironically, the theory of
"self-ownership" is used to undercut and destroy genuine self-ownership
during working hours (and, potentially, elsewhere). The logic is 
simple. As I own myself I am, therefore, able to sell myself as well, 
although few advocates of "self-ownership" are as blunt as this (as 
we discuss in <a href="secF2.html#secf22">section F.2.2</a> 
right-libertarian Robert Nozick accepts 
that voluntary slavery flows from this principle). Instead they 
stress that we "own" our labour and we contract them to others 
to use. Yet, unlike other forms of property, labour cannot be 
alienated. Therefore when you sell your labour you sell yourself, 
your liberty, for the time in question. By alienating your labour 
power, you alienate the substance of your being, your personality, 
for the time in question.
</p><p>
As such, "self-ownership" ironically becomes the means of justifying 
authoritarian social relationships which deny the autonomy it claims
to defend. Indeed, these relationships have similarities with slavery,
the very thing which its advocates like to contrast "self-ownership"
to. While modern defenders of capitalism deny this, classical 
economist James Mill let the cat out of the bag by directly 
comparing the two. It is worthwhile to quote him at length:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The great capitalist, the owner of a manufactory, if he operated with 
slaves instead of free labourers, like the West India planter, would be 
regarded as owner both of the capital, and of the labour. He would be 
owner, in short, of both instruments of production: and the whole of 
the produce, without participation, would be his own.
</p><p>
"What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by means 
of labourers receiving wages? The labourer, who receives wages, sells 
his labour for a day, a week, a month, or a year, as the case may be. 
The manufacturer, who pays these wages, buys the labour, for the day, 
the year, or whatever period it may be. He is equally therefore the 
owner of the labour, with the manufacturer who operates with slaves. 
The only difference is, in the mode of purchasing. The owner of the 
slave purchases, at once, the whole of the labour, which the man can 
ever perform: he, who pays wages, purchases only so much of a man's 
labour as he can perform in a day, or any other stipulated time. 
Being equally, however, the owner of the labour, so purchased, as 
the owner of the slave is of that of the slave, the produce, which 
is the result of this labour, combined with his capital, is all 
equally his own. In the state of society, in which we at present 
exist, it is in these circumstances that almost all production is 
effected: the capitalist is the owner of both instruments of 
production: and the whole of the produce is his."</i> [<i>"Elements of 
Political Economy"</i> quoted by David Ellerman, <b>Property and Contract 
in Economics</b>, pp. 53-4
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus the only <i>"difference"</i> between slavery and capitalist labour is 
the <i>"mode of purchasing."</i> The labour itself and its product in both 
cases is owned by the <i>"great capitalist."</i> Clearly this is a case of,
to use Rothbard's words, during working hours the worker <i>"has 
little or no right to self-ownership; his person and his produce 
are systematically expropriated by his master."</i> Little wonder 
anarchists have tended to call wage labour by the more accurate term <i><b>"wage 
slavery."</b></i> For the duration of the working day the boss owns the 
labour power of the worker. As this cannot be alienated from its
"owner" this means that the boss effectively owns the worker -- and
keeps the product of their labour for the privilege of so doing!
</p><p>
There are key differences of course. At the time, slavery was not
a voluntary decision and the slaves could not change their master
(although in some cultures, such as Ancient Rome, people over the
could sell themselves in slavery while <i>"<b>voluntary</b> slavery is 
sanctioned in the Bible."</i> [Ellerman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 115 and p. 114]). 
Yet the fact that under wage slavery people are not forced to take 
a specific job and can change masters does not change the relations 
of authority created between the two parties. As we note in the 
<a href="secB4.html#secb43">next 
section</a>, the objection that people can leave their jobs just amounts 
to saying "love it or leave it!" and does not address the issue at 
hand. The vast majority of the population cannot avoid wage labour
and remain wage workers for most of their adult lives. It is virtually 
impossible to distinguish being able to sell your liberty/labour 
piecemeal over a lifetime from alienating your whole lifetime's 
labour at one go. Changing who you alienate your labour/liberty to 
does not change the act and experience of alienation. 
</p><p>
Thus the paradox of self-ownership. It presupposes autonomy only in
order to deny it. In order to enter a contract, the worker exercises
autonomy in deciding whether it is advantageous to rent or sell his
or her property (their labour power) for use by another (and given
that the alternative is, at best, poverty unsurprisingly people do 
consider it "advantageous" to "consent" to the contract). Yet what
is rented or sold is <b>not</b> a piece of property but rather a 
self-governing individual. Once the contract is made and the 
property rights are transferred, they no longer have autonomy and
are treated like any other factor of production or commodity. 
</p><p>
In the "self-ownership" thesis this is acceptable due to its 
assumption that people and their labour power are property. Yet
the worker cannot send along their labour by itself to an employer.
By its very nature, the worker has to be present in the workplace if
this "property" is to be put to use by the person who has bought it.
The consequence of contracting out your labour (your property in the
person) is that your autonomy (liberty) is restricted, if not 
destroyed, depending on the circumstances of the particular contract
signed. This is because employers hire people, not a piece of 
property. 
</p><p>
So far from being based on the "right to self-ownership," then, 
capitalism effectively 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. For 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><p>
It should be stressed that this is <b>not</b>  a strange paradox of the
"self-ownership" axiom. Far from it. The doctrine was most famously
expounded by John Locke, who argued that <i>"every Man has a <b>Property</b> 
in his own <b>Person.</b>  This no Body has any Right to but himself."</i>
However, a person can sell, <i>"for a certain time, the Service he 
undertakes to do, in exchange for Wages he is to receive."</i> The 
buyer of the labour then owns both it and its product. <i>"Thus
the Grass my Horse has bit; the Turfs my Servant has cut; and the
Ore I have digg'd in any place where I have a right to them in 
common with others, becomes my <b>Property,</b>  without the assignation
or consent of any body. The <b>labour</b>  that was mine . . . hath <b>fixed</b> 
my <b>Property</b>  in them."</i> [<b>Second Treatise on Government</b>, Section 27, 
Section 85 and Section 28]
</p><p>
Thus a person (the servant) becomes the equivalent of an animal (the 
horse) once they have sold their labour to the boss. Wage labour
denies the basic humanity and autonomy of the worker. Rather than 
being equals, private property produces relations of domination and
alienation. Proudhon compared this to an association in which, <i>"while 
the partnership lasts, the profits and losses are divided between 
them; since each produces, not for himself, but for the society; when 
the time of distribution arrives it is not the producer who is 
considered, but the associated. That is why the slave, to whom the 
planter gives straw and rice; and the civilised labour, to whom 
the capitalist pays a salary which is always too small, -- not 
being associated with their employers, although producing with 
them, --  are disregarded when the product is divided. Thus the 
horse who draws our coaches . . . produce with us, but are not 
associated with us; we take their product but do not share it with 
them. The animals and labourers whom we employ hold the same relation 
to us."</i> [<b>What is Property?</b>, p. 226] 
</p><p>
So while the capitalist Locke sees nothing wrong in comparing a person 
to an animal, the anarchist Proudhon objects to the fundamental injustice
of a system which turns a person into a resource for another to use. And
we do mean resource, as the self-ownership thesis is also the means by 
which the poor become little more than spare parts for the wealthy. After 
all, the poor own their bodies and, consequently, can sell all or part 
of it to a willing party. This means that someone in dire economic 
necessity can sell parts of their body to the rich. Ultimately, <i>"[t]o 
tell a poor man that he <b>has</b>  property because he <b>has</b>  arms and legs 
-- that the hunger from which he suffers, and his power to sleep in 
the open air are his property, -- is to play upon words, and to add 
insult to injury."</i> [Proudhon, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 80]
</p><p>
Obviously the ability to labour is <b>not</b>  the property of a person 
-- it is their possession. Use and ownership are fused and
cannot be separated out. As such, anarchists argue that the history 
of capitalism shows that there is a considerable difference whether 
one said (like the defenders of capitalism) that slavery is wrong 
because every person has a natural right to the property of their 
own body, or because every person has a natural right freely to 
determine their own destiny (like the anarchists). The first kind 
of right is alienable and in the context of a capitalist regime 
ensures that the many labour for those who own the means of life. 
The second kind of right is inalienable as long as a person remained 
a person and, therefore, liberty or self-determination is not a claim 
to ownership which might be both acquired and surrendered, but an 
inextricable aspect of the activity of being human. 
</p><p>
The anarchist position on the inalienable nature of human liberty 
also forms the basis for the excluded to demand access to the means 
necessary to labour. <i>"From the distinction between possession 
and property,"</i> argued Proudhon, <i>"arise two sorts of rights: the <b>jus 
in re</b>, the right <b>in</b>  a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the 
property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and 
<b>jus ad rem</b>, the right <b>to</b>  a thing, which gives me a claim to
become a proprietor . . . In the first, possession and property 
are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, 
as a labourer, have a right to the possession of the products of 
Nature and my own industry -- and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none 
of them -- it is by virtue of the <b>jus de rem</b> that I demand 
admittance to the <b>jus in re.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 65] Thus
to make the self-ownership of labour and its products a reality 
for those who do the actual work in society rather than a farce, 
property must be abolished -- both in terms of the means of life 
and also in defining liberty and what it means to be free. 
</p><p>
So, contrary to Rothbard's claim, capitalism in practice uses 
the rhetoric of self-ownership to alienate the right to genuine 
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><p><blockquote><i>
"They speak of 'inherent rights', 'inalienable rights', 'natural
rights,' etc . . . Unless the material conditions for equality
exist, it is worse than mockery to pronounce men equal. And unless
there is equality (and by equality I mean equal chances for every
one to make the most of himself [or herself]) unless, I say, these
equal changes exist, freedom, either of though, speech, or action,
is equally a mockery . . . As long as the working-people . . . 
tramp the streets, whose stones they lay, whose filth they clean, 
whose sewers they dig, yet upon which they must not stand too long 
lest the policeman bid them 'move on'; as long as they go from 
factory to factory, begging for the opportunity to be a slave, 
receiving the insults of bosses and foreman, getting the old 
'no,' the old shake of the head, in these factories they built, 
whose machines they wrought; so long as they consent to be herd like
cattle, in the cities, driven year after year, more and more, off the
mortgaged land, the land they cleared, fertilised, cultivated, 
rendered of value . . . so long as they continue to do these things
vaguely relying upon some power outside themselves, be it god, or
priest, or politician, or employer, or charitable society, to remedy
matters, so long deliverance will be delayed. When they conceive the
possibility of a complete international federation of labour, whose
constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories,
all the instruments of production . . . , in short, conduct their
own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or
employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught
-- Self-Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech
[along with their other rights] (and no paper guarantee needed)."</i> 
[Voltairine de Cleyre, <b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, pp. 4-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
To conclude, the idea that capitalism is based on self-ownership is 
radically at odds with reality if, by self-ownership, it is meant 
self-determination or individual autonomy. However, this is not 
surprising given that the rationale behind the self-ownership thesis 
is precisely to justify capitalist hierarchy and its resulting 
restrictions on liberty. Rather than being a defence of liberty, 
self-ownership is designed to facilitate its erosion. In order to
make the promise of autonomy implied by the concept of "self-ownership"
a reality, private property will need to be abolished. 
</p><p>
For more discussion of the limitations, contradictions and fallacies 
of defining liberty in terms of self-ownership and property rights, 
see <a href="secF2.html">section F.2</a>.</p>

<a name="secb43"><h2>B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!</h2></a>

<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),
the control of the state by the capitalist class 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. 
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> 
[<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 187] 
 </p><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><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><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><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><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><p>
Obviously, a company cannot <b>force</b> you to work for them but, in general, 
you have to work for <b>someone</b>. How this situation developed is, of course, 
usually ignored. If not glossed over as irrelevant, some fairy tale is spun 
in which a few bright people saved and worked hard to accumulate capital 
and the lazy majority flocked to be employed by these (almost superhuman) 
geniuses. In the words of one right-wing economist (talking specifically 
of the industrial revolution but whose argument is utilised today):
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a 
factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the 
wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless 
much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them."</i> 
[Ludwig von Mises, <b>Human Action</b>, pp. 619-20]
</blockquote></p><p>
Notice the assumptions. The workers just happen have such a terrible set 
of options -- the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do with it. 
And these owners just happen to have all these means of production on their 
hands while the working class just happen to be without property and, as a 
consequence, forced to sell their labour on the owners' terms. That the 
state enforces capitalist property rights and acts to defend the power of 
the owning class is just another co-incidence among many. The possibility 
that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies 
that reduced the available options of workers is too ludicrous even to 
mention.
</p><p>
Yet in the real world, the power of coincidence to explain all is less 
compelling. Here things are more grim as the owning class clearly benefited 
from numerous acts of state violence and a general legal framework which 
restricted the options available for the workers. Apparently we are meant
to believe that it is purely by strange co-incidence the state was run by 
the wealthy and owning classes, not the working class, and that a whole 
host of anti-labour laws and practices were implemented by random chance.
</p><p>
It should be stressed that this nonsense, with its underlying assumptions 
and inventions, is still being peddled today. It is being repeated to 
combat the protests that "multinational corporations exploit people in 
poor countries." Yes, it will be readily admitted, multinationals <b>do</b> 
pay lower wages in developing countries than in rich ones: that is why 
they go there. However, it is argued, this represents economic advancement 
compares to what the other options available are. As the corporations do 
not force them to work for them and they would have stayed with what 
they were doing previously the charge of exploitation is wrong. Would 
you, it is stressed, leave your job for one with less pay and worse 
conditions? In fact, the bosses are doing them a favour in paying 
such low wages for the products the companies charge such high 
prices in the developed world for.
</p><p>
And so, by the same strange co-incidence that marked the industrial 
revolution, capitalists today (in the form of multinational corporations) 
gravitate toward states with terrible human rights records. States where, 
at worse, death squads torture and "disappear" union and peasant 
co-operative organisers or where, at best, attempts to organise a union 
can get you arrested or fired and blacklisted. States were peasants are
being forced of their land as a result of government policies which 
favour the big landlords. By an equally strange coincidence, the foreign 
policy of the American and European governments is devoted to making 
sure such anti-labour regimes stay in power. It is a co-incidence, of 
course, that such regimes are favoured by the multinationals and that 
these states spend so much effort in providing a "market friendly" climate 
to tempt the corporations to set up their sweatshops there. It is also, 
apparently, just a co-incidence that these states are controlled by 
the local wealthy owning classes and subject to economic pressure by
the transnationals which invest and wish to invest there.
</p><p>
It is clear that when a person who is mugged hands over their money 
to the mugger they do so because they prefer it to the "next best 
alternative." As such, it is correct that people agree to sell their 
liberty to a boss because their "next best alternative" is worse (utter 
poverty or starvation are not found that appealing for some reason). 
But so what? As anarchists have been pointing out over a century, the 
capitalists have systematically used the state to create a limit options 
for the many, to create buyers' market for labour by skewing the 
conditions under which workers can sell their labour in the bosses 
favour. To then merrily answer all criticisms of this set-up with 
the response that the workers "voluntarily agreed" to work on those 
terms is just hypocrisy. Does it really change things if the mugger 
(the state) is only the agent (hired thug) of another criminal (the 
owning class)?
</p><p>
As such, hymns to the "free market" seem somewhat false when the reality
of the situation is such that workers do not need to be forced at gun 
point to enter a specific workplace because of <b>past</b> (and more often
than not, current) "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><p>
As Karl Polanyi puts it:  
 <blockquote></p><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><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><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><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><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 it 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><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><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><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><p>
How little things have changed. 
 </p><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></a>

<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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><p>
As noted at the beginning of this section, the economic effects of such
periods of empowerment and revolt are discussed in <a href="secC7.html">section 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> 
[quoted by Malcolm C. Sawyer, <b>The Economics of Michal Kalecki</b>, p. 139
and p. 138]
</p><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, quoted by Sawyer, <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><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></a>

<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><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><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><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-quality
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><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><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><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> He 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. 318 and p. 320] Even though <i>"[s]everal dozen well-documented
experiments show that productivity increases and social problems
decrease when workers participate 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><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><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><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><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><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><p>
As Murray Bookchin observes:
</p><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>, pp. 1-17, 
<b>Democracy and Nature</b> no. 8, p. 4]
</p><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><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><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><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>
anarchism 14.0-2 / usr / share / doc / anarchism / html / secB4.html
