« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to txt/secB4.txt
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
txt/secB4.txt
1
B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?
2
3
Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The
4
owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and
5
therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is
6
exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under
7
capitalism it is a source of coercive authority. As Bob Black points
8
out in The Abolition of Work:
9
10
"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament
11
totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same
12
sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do
13
in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The
14
boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the
15
meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free
16
to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he
17
feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the
18
bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or
19
no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he
20
amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called
21
'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it
22
not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment
23
compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described
24
rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast
25
majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For
26
certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system
27
democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its
28
real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who
29
says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid." [The Abolition of
30
Work and other essays, p. 21]
31
32
In response to this, defenders of capitalism usually say something
33
along the lines of "It's a free market and if you don't like it, find
34
another job." Of course, there are a number of problems with this
35
response. Most obviously is the fact that capitalism is not and has
36
never been a "free market." As we noted in [1]section B.2, a key role
37
of the state has been to protect the interests of the capitalist class
38
and, as a consequence of this, it has intervened time and time again to
39
skew the market in favour of the bosses. As such, to inform us that
40
capitalism is something it has never been in order to defend it from
41
criticism is hardly convincing.
42
43
However, there is another more fundamental issue with the response,
44
namely the assumption that tyranny is an acceptable form of human
45
interaction. To say that your option is either tolerate this boss or
46
seek out another (hopefully more liberal) one suggests an utter lack of
47
understanding what freedom is. Freedom is not the opportunity to pick a
48
master, it is to be have autonomy over yourself. What capitalist
49
ideology has achieved is to confuse having the ability to pick a master
50
with freedom, that consent equates to liberty -- regardless of the
51
objective circumstances shaping the choices being made or the nature of
52
the social relationships such choices produce.
53
54
While we return to this argument in [2]section B.4.3, a few words seem
55
appropriate now. To see why the capitalist response misses the point,
56
we need only transfer the argument from the economic regime to the
57
political. Let us assume a system of dictatorial states on an island.
58
Each regime is a monarchy (i.e. a dictatorship). The King of each land
59
decrees what his subjects do, who they associate with and, moreover,
60
appropriates the fruit of their labour in exchange for food, clothing
61
and shelter for however many hours a day he wants (the King is generous
62
and allows his subjects some time to themselves in the evening and
63
weekends). Some of the Kings even decree what their subjects will wear
64
and how they will greet their fellow subjects. Few people would say
65
that those subject to such arrangements are free.
66
67
Now, if we add the condition that any subject is free to leave a
68
Kingdom but only if another King will let them join his regime, does
69
that make it any more freer? Slightly, but not by much. The subjects
70
how have a limited choice in who can govern them but the nature of the
71
regime they are subjected to does not change. What we would expect to
72
see happen is that those subjects whose skills are in demand will get
73
better, more liberal, conditions than the others (as long as they are
74
in demand). For the majority the conditions they are forced to accept
75
will be as bad as before as they are easily replaceable. Both sets of
76
subjects, however, are still under the autocratic rule of the monarchs.
77
Neither are free but the members of one set have a more liberal regime
78
than the others, dependent on the whims of the autocrats and their need
79
for labour.
80
81
That this thought experiment reflects the way capitalism operates is
82
clear. Little wonder anarchists have echoed Proudhon's complaint that
83
"our large capitalist associations [are] organised in the spirit of
84
commercial and industrial feudalism." [Selected Writings of
85
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 72] Ironically, rather than deny the
86
anarchist claim, defenders of capitalism have tried to convince us that
87
such a regime is liberty incarnate. Yet the statist nature of private
88
property can be seen in (right-wing) "Libertarian" (i.e. "classical"
89
liberal) works representing the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism:
90
91
"[I]f one starts a private town, on land whose acquisition did not
92
and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of non-aggression],
93
persons who chose to move there or later remain there would have no
94
right to a say in how the town was run, unless it was granted to
95
them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner had
96
established." [Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270]
97
98
This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. And, indeed, it was. Such
99
private towns have existed, most notably the infamous company towns of
100
US history. Howard Zinn summarises the conditions of such "private
101
towns" in the Colorado mine fields:
102
103
"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the company acting as
104
lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law enforcement officer
105
paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's rules. Curfews
106
were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to visit the
107
homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold in the camp.
108
The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers hired by the
109
company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in the hands of
110
those who held economic power. This meant that the authority of
111
Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme
112
. . . Company officials were appointed as election judges.
113
Company-dominated coroners and judges prevented injured employees
114
from collecting damages." [The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14, pp.
115
9-11]
116
117
Unsurprisingly, when the workers rebelled against this tyranny, they
118
were evicted from their homes and the private law enforcement agents
119
were extremely efficient in repressing the strikers: "By the end of the
120
strike, most of the dead and injured were miners and their families."
121
The strike soon took on the features of a war, with battles between
122
strikers and their supporters and the company thugs. Ironically, when
123
the National Guard was sent in to "restore order" the "miners, having
124
faced in the first five weeks of the strike what they considered a
125
reign of terror at the hands of the private guards, . . . looked
126
forward" to their arrival. They "did not know that the governor was
127
sending these troops under pressure from the mine operators." Indeed,
128
the banks and corporations lent the state funds to pay for the militia.
129
It was these company thugs, dressed in the uniform of the state
130
militia, who murdered woman and children in the infamous Ludlow
131
Massacre of April 20th, 1914. [Op. Cit., p. 22, p. 25, p. 35]
132
133
Without irony the New York Times editorialised that the "militia was as
134
impersonal and impartial as the law." The corporation itself hired Ivy
135
Lee ("the father of public relations in the United States") to change
136
public opinion after the slaughter. Significantly, Lee produced a
137
series of tracts labelled "Facts Concerning the Struggle in Colorado
138
for Industrial Freedom." The head of the corporation (Rockefeller)
139
portrayed his repression of the strikers as blow for workers' freedom,
140
to "defend the workers' right to work." [quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit., p.
141
44, p. 51 and p. 50] So much for the capitalism being the embodiment of
142
liberty.
143
144
Of course, it can be claimed that "market forces" will result in the
145
most liberal owners being the most successful, but a nice master is
146
still a master (and, of course, capitalism then was more "free market"
147
than today, suggesting that this is simply wishful thinking). To
148
paraphrase Tolstoy, "the liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey
149
owner. He will do everything for the donkey -- care for it, feed it,
150
wash it. Everything except get off its back!" And as Bob Black notes,
151
"Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence
152
of servitude. . . . But freedom means more than the right to change
153
masters." [The Libertarian as Conservative, The Abolition of Work and
154
other essays, p. 147] That supporters of capitalism often claim that
155
this "right" to change masters is the essence of "freedom" is a telling
156
indictment of the capitalist notion of "liberty."
157
158
Needless to say, the authoritarianism of capitalism is not limited to
159
the workplace. Capitalists seek to bolster their power within society
160
as a whole, via the state. Capitalists call upon and support the state
161
when it acts in their interests and when it supports their authority
162
and power. Any apparent "conflict" between state and capital is like
163
two gangsters fighting over the proceeds of a robbery: they will
164
squabble over the loot and who has more power in the gang, but they
165
need each other to appropriate the goods and defend their "property"
166
against those from whom they stole it.
167
168
Unlike a company, however, the democratic state can be influenced by
169
its citizens, who are able to act in ways that limit (to some extent)
170
the power of the ruling elite to be "left alone" to enjoy their power.
171
As a result, the wealthy hate the democratic aspects of the state, and
172
its ordinary citizens, as potential threats to their power. This
173
"problem" was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in early 19th-century
174
America:
175
176
"It is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community
177
entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their
178
country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and their
179
fears."
180
181
These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic
182
ideas. To quote one US Corporate Executive, "one man, one vote will
183
result in the eventual failure of democracy as we know it." [L. Silk
184
and D. Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American
185
Business, pp. 189f]
186
187
This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are
188
anti-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on the
189
state. This is because "[classical] Liberalism, is in theory a kind of
190
anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom
191
is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at
192
government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions
193
and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves,
194
but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence:
195
for without the gendarme the property owner could not exist." [Errico
196
Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 47]
197
198
We have discussed the state and how the ruling elite control in
199
[3]section B.2 and will not do so here. Nor we will discuss the ways in
200
which the elite use that state to enforce private property (see
201
[4]section B.3) or use the state to intervene in society (see
202
[5]section D.1). Rather, the rest of this section will discuss how
203
capitalism impacts on freedom and autonomy and why the standard
204
apologetics by defenders of capitalism fail.
205
206
B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom?
207
208
For anarchists, freedom means both "freedom from" and "freedom to."
209
"Freedom from" signifies not being subject to domination, exploitation,
210
coercive authority, repression, or other forms of degradation and
211
humiliation. "Freedom to" means being able to develop and express one's
212
abilities, talents, and potentials to the fullest possible extent
213
compatible with the maximum freedom of others. Both kinds of freedom
214
imply the need for self-management, responsibility, and independence,
215
which basically means that people have a say in the decisions that
216
affect their lives. And since individuals do not exist in a social
217
vacuum, it also means that freedom must take on a collective aspect,
218
with the associations that individuals form with each other (e.g.
219
communities, work groups, social groups) being run in a manner which
220
allows the individual to participate in the decisions that the group
221
makes. Thus freedom for anarchists requires participatory democracy,
222
which means face-to-face discussion and voting on issues by the people
223
affected by them.
224
225
Are these conditions of freedom met in the capitalist system? Obviously
226
not. Despite all their rhetoric about "democracy," most of the
227
"advanced" capitalist states remain only superficially democratic --
228
and this because the majority of their citizens are employees who spend
229
about half their waking hours under the thumb of capitalist dictators
230
(bosses) who allow them no voice in the crucial economic decisions that
231
affect their lives most profoundly and require them to work under
232
conditions inimical to independent thinking. If the most basic freedom,
233
namely freedom to think for oneself, is denied, then freedom itself is
234
denied.
235
236
The capitalist workplace is profoundly undemocratic. Indeed, as Noam
237
Chomsky points out, the oppressive authority relations in the typical
238
corporate hierarchy would be called fascist or totalitarian if we were
239
referring to a political system. In his words :
240
241
"There's nothing individualistic about corporations. These are big
242
conglomerate institutions, essentially totalitarian in character,
243
but hardly individualistic. There are few institutions in human
244
society that have such strict hierarchy and top-down control as a
245
business organisation. Nothing there about 'don't tread on me`.
246
You're being tread on all the time." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p.
247
280]
248
249
Far from being "based on freedom," then, capitalism actually destroys
250
freedom. In this regard, Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of
251
Sears, spoke plainly when he said "[w]e stress the advantages of the
252
free enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state,
253
but... we have created more or less of a totalitarian system in
254
industry, particularly in large industry." [quoted by Allan Engler,
255
Apostles of Greed, p. 68]
256
257
Or, as Chomsky puts it, supporters of capitalism do not understand "the
258
fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and
259
control, including the control of the manager and the owner" [Feb.
260
14th, 1992 appearance on Pozner/Donahue].
261
262
Under corporate authoritarianism, the psychological traits deemed most
263
desirable for average citizens to possess are efficiency, conformity,
264
emotional detachment, insensitivity, and unquestioning obedience to
265
authority -- traits that allow people to survive and even prosper as
266
employees in the company hierarchy. And of course, for "non-average"
267
citizens, i.e., bosses, managers, administrators, etc., authoritarian
268
traits are needed, the most important being the ability and willingness
269
to dominate others.
270
271
But all such master/slave traits are inimical to the functioning of
272
real (i.e. participatory/libertarian) democracy, which requires that
273
citizens have qualities like flexibility, creativity, sensitivity,
274
understanding, emotional honesty, directness, warmth, realism, and the
275
ability to mediate, communicate, negotiate, integrate and co-operate.
276
Therefore, capitalism is not only undemocratic, it is anti-democratic,
277
because it promotes the development of traits that make real democracy
278
(and so a libertarian society) impossible.
279
280
Many capitalist apologists have attempted to show that capitalist
281
authority structures are "voluntary" and are, therefore, somehow not a
282
denial of individual and social freedom. Milton Friedman (a leading
283
free market capitalist economist) has attempted to do just this. Like
284
most apologists for capitalism he ignores the authoritarian relations
285
explicit within wage labour (within the workplace, "co-ordination" is
286
based upon top-down command, not horizontal co-operation). Instead he
287
concentrates on the decision of a worker to sell their labour to a
288
specific boss and so ignores the lack of freedom within such contracts.
289
He argues that "individuals are effectively free to enter or not enter
290
into any particular exchange, so every transaction is strictly
291
voluntary. . . The employee is protected from coercion by the employer
292
because of other employers for whom he can work." [Capitalism and
293
Freedom, pp. 14-15]
294
295
Friedman, to prove the free nature of capitalism, compares capitalism
296
with a simple exchange economy based upon independent producers. He
297
states that in such a simple economy each household "has the
298
alternative of producing directly for itself, [and so] it need not
299
enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence no exchange
300
will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is
301
thereby achieved without coercion." Under capitalism (or the "complex"
302
economy) Friedman states that "individuals are effectively free to
303
enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every
304
transaction is strictly voluntary." [Op. Cit., p. 13 and p. 14]
305
306
A moments thought, however, shows that capitalism is not based on
307
"strictly voluntary" transactions as Friedman claims. This is because
308
the proviso that is required to make every transaction "strictly
309
voluntary" is not freedom not to enter any particular exchange, but
310
freedom not to enter into any exchange at all.
311
312
This, and only this, was the proviso that proved the simple model
313
Friedman presents (the one based upon artisan production) to be
314
voluntary and non-coercive; and nothing less than this would prove the
315
complex model (i.e. capitalism) is voluntary and non-coercive. But
316
Friedman is clearly claiming above that freedom not to enter into any
317
particular exchange is enough and so, only by changing his own
318
requirements, can he claim that capitalism is based upon freedom.
319
320
It is easy to see what Friedman has done, but it is less easy to excuse
321
it (particularly as it is so commonplace in capitalist apologetics). He
322
moved from the simple economy of exchange between independent producers
323
to the capitalist economy without mentioning the most important thing
324
that distinguishes them - namely the separation of labour from the
325
means of production. In the society of independent producers, the
326
worker had the choice of working for themselves - under capitalism this
327
is not the case. For capitalist economists like Friedman, workers
328
choose whether to work or not. The bosses must pay a wage to cover the
329
"disutility" of labour. In reality, of course, most workers face the
330
choice of working or starvation/poverty. Capitalism is based upon the
331
existence of a labour force without access to capital or land, and
332
therefore without a choice as to whether to put its labour in the
333
market or not. Friedman would, hopefully, agree that where there is no
334
choice there is coercion. His attempted demonstration that capitalism
335
co-ordinates without coercion therefore fails.
336
337
Capitalist apologists are able to convince some people that capitalism
338
is "based on freedom" only because the system has certain superficial
339
appearances of freedom. On closer analysis these appearances turn out
340
to be deceptions. For example, it is claimed that the employees of
341
capitalist firms have freedom because they can always quit. To requote
342
Bob Black:
343
344
"Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the
345
essence of servitude. Of course, as [right-Libertarians] smugly
346
[observe], 'one can at least change jobs,' but you can't avoid
347
having a job -- just as under statism one can at least change
348
nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one nation-state or
349
another. But freedom means more than the right to change masters."
350
["The Libertarian as Conservative", The Abolition of Work and other
351
essays, p. 147]
352
353
Under capitalism, workers have only the Hobson's choice of being
354
governed/exploited or living on the street.
355
356
Anarchists point out that for choice to be real, free agreements and
357
associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter
358
into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But
359
social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal,
360
because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to
361
social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination,
362
as was recognised even by Adam Smith (see [6]below).
363
364
The picture painted by Walter Reuther (one time head of the US
365
autoworkers' union) of working life in America before the Wagner act is
366
a commentary on class inequality : "Injustice was as common as
367
streetcars. When men walked into their jobs, they left their dignity,
368
their citizenship and their humanity outside. They were required to
369
report for duty whether there was work or not. While they waited on the
370
convenience of supervisors and foremen they were unpaid. They could be
371
fired without a pretext. They were subjected to arbitrary, senseless
372
rules . . . Men were tortured by regulations that made difficult even
373
going to the toilet. Despite grandiloquent statements from the
374
presidents of huge corporations that their door was open to any worker
375
with a complaint, there was no one and no agency to which a worker
376
could appeal if he were wronged. The very idea that a worker could be
377
wronged seemed absurd to the employer." Much of this indignity remains,
378
and with the globalisation of capital, the bargaining position of
379
workers is further deteriorating, so that the gains of a century of
380
class struggle are in danger of being lost.
381
382
A quick look at the enormous disparity of power and wealth between the
383
capitalist class and the working class shows that the benefits of the
384
"agreements" entered into between the two sides are far from equal.
385
Walter Block, a leading ideologue of the Canadian right-libertarian
386
"think-tank" the Fraser Institute, makes clear the differences in power
387
and benefits when discussing sexual harassment in the workplace:
388
389
"Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a
390
secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it]
391
is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in
392
which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees
393
to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job.
394
The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not
395
have to remain if the 'coercion' is objectionable." [quoted by
396
Engler, Op. Cit., p. 101]
397
398
The primary goal of the Fraser Institute is to convince people that all
399
other rights must be subordinated to the right to enjoy wealth. In this
400
case, Block makes clear that under private property, only bosses have
401
"freedom to," and most also desire to ensure they have "freedom from"
402
interference with this right.
403
404
So, when capitalists gush about the "liberty" available under
405
capitalism, what they are really thinking of is their state-protected
406
freedom to exploit and oppress workers through the ownership of
407
property, a freedom that allows them to continue amassing huge
408
disparities of wealth, which in turn insures their continued power and
409
privileges. That the capitalist class in liberal-democratic states
410
gives workers the right to change masters (though this is not true
411
under state capitalism) is far from showing that capitalism is based on
412
freedom, For as Peter Kropotkin rightly points out, "freedoms are not
413
given, they are taken." [Peter Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 43] In
414
capitalism, you are "free" to do anything you are permitted to do by
415
your masters, which amounts to "freedom" with a collar and leash.
416
417
B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership?
418
419
Murray Rothbard, a leading "libertarian" capitalist, claims that
420
capitalism is based on the "basic axiom" of "the right to
421
self-ownership." This "axiom" is defined as "the absolute right of each
422
man [sic] . . . to control [his or her] body free of coercive
423
interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and
424
choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the
425
right to self-ownership gives man [sic] the right to perform these
426
vital activities without being hampered by coercive molestation." [For
427
a New Liberty, pp. 26-27]
428
429
At first sight, this appears to sound reasonable. That we "own"
430
ourselves and, consequently, we decide what we do with ourselves has an
431
intuitive appeal. Surely this is liberty? Thus, in this perspective,
432
liberty "is a condition in which a person's ownership rights in his own
433
body and his legitimate material property are not invaded, are not
434
aggressed against." It also lends itself to contrasts with slavery,
435
where one individual owns another and "the slave has little or no right
436
to self-ownership; his person and his produce are systematically
437
expropriated by his master by the use of violence." [Rothbard, Op.
438
Cit., p. 41] This means that "self-ownership" can be portrayed as the
439
opposite of slavery: we have the dominion over ourselves that a
440
slaveholder has over their slave. This means that slavery is wrong
441
because the slave owner has stolen the rightful property of the slave,
442
namely their body (and its related abilities). This concept is
443
sometimes expressed as people having a "natural" or "inalienable" right
444
to own their own body and the product of their own labour.
445
446
Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not
447
convinced. That "self-ownership," like slavery, places issues of
448
freedom and individuality within the context of private property -- as
449
such it shares the most important claim of slavery, namely that people
450
can be objects of the rules of private property. It suggests an
451
alienated perspective and, moreover, a fatal flaw in the dogma. This
452
can be seen from how the axiom is used in practice. In as much as the
453
term "self-ownership" is used simply as an synonym for "individual
454
autonomy" anarchists do not have an issue with it. However, the "basic
455
axiom" is not used in this way by the theorists of capitalism. Liberty
456
in the sense of individual autonomy is not what "self-ownership" aims
457
to justify. Rather, it aims to justify the denial of liberty, not its
458
exercise. It aims to portray social relationships, primarily wage
459
labour, in which one person commands another as examples of liberty
460
rather than what they are, examples of domination and oppression. In
461
other words, "self-ownership" becomes the means by which the autonomy
462
of individuals is limited, if not destroyed, in the name of freedom and
463
liberty.
464
465
This is exposed in the right-libertarian slogan "human rights are
466
property rights." Assuming this is true, it means that you can alienate
467
your rights, rent them or sell them like any other kind of property.
468
Moreover, if you have no property, you have no human rights as you have
469
no place to exercise them. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for "free
470
market" capitalism stated, "there can be no such thing as the right to
471
unrestricted freedom of speech (or of action) on someone else's
472
property." [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 258] If you are in
473
someone else's property (say at work) you have no basic rights at all,
474
beyond the right not to be harmed (a right bosses habitually violate
475
anyway by ignoring health and safety issues).
476
477
Self-ownership justifies this. You have rented out the property in your
478
person (labour services) and, consequently, another person can tell you
479
what to do, when to do and how to do it. Thus property comes into
480
conflict with liberty. If you argue that "human rights are property
481
rights" you automatically ensure that human rights are continually
482
violated in practice simply because there is a conflict between
483
property and liberty. This is not surprising, as the "property rights"
484
theory of liberty was created to justify the denial of other people's
485
liberty and the appropriation of their labour.
486
487
Clearly, then, we reach a problem with "self-ownership" (or property in
488
the person) once we take into account private property and its
489
distribution. In a nutshell, capitalists don't pay their employees to
490
perform the other "vital activities" listed by Rothbard (learning,
491
valuing, choosing ends and means) -- unless, of course, the firm
492
requires that workers undertake such activities in the interests of
493
company profits. Otherwise, workers can rest assured that any efforts
494
to engage in such "vital activities" on company time will be "hampered"
495
by "coercive molestation." Therefore wage labour (the basis of
496
capitalism) in practice denies the rights associated with
497
"self-ownership," thus alienating the individual from his or her basic
498
rights. Or as Michael Bakunin expressed it, "the worker sells his
499
person and his liberty for a given time" under capitalism. [The
500
Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187]
501
502
In a society of relative equals, "property" would not be a source of
503
power as use would co-incidence with occupancy (i.e. private property
504
would be replaced by possession). For example, you would still be able
505
to fling a drunk out of your home. But in a system based on wage labour
506
(i.e. capitalism), property is a different thing altogether, becoming a
507
source of institutionalised power and coercive authority through
508
hierarchy. As Noam Chomsky writes, capitalism is based on "a particular
509
form of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through
510
private ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of
511
domination." When "property" is purely what you, as an individual, use
512
(i.e. possession) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however,
513
"property" rights no longer coincide with use rights, and so they
514
become a denial of freedom and a source of authority and power over the
515
individual.
516
517
As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (sections [7]A.2.8 and
518
[8]B.1), all forms of authoritarian control depend on "coercive
519
molestation" -- i.e. the use or threat of sanctions. This is definitely
520
the case in company hierarchies under capitalism. Bob Black describes
521
the authoritarian nature of capitalism as follows:
522
523
"[T]he place where [adults] pass the most time and submit to the
524
closest control is at work. Thus . . . it's apparent that the source
525
of the greatest direct duress experienced by the ordinary adult is
526
not the state but rather the business that employs him. Your foreman
527
or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the
528
police do in a decade." ["The Libertarian as Conservative", The
529
Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 145]
530
531
In developing nations, this control can easily been seen to be an utter
532
affront to human dignity and liberty. There a workplace is often
533
"surrounded by barbed wire. Behind its locked doors . . . workers are
534
supervised by guards who beat and humiliate them on the slightest
535
pretext . . . Each worker repeats the same action -- sewing on a belt
536
loop, stitching a sleeve -- maybe two thousand times a day. They work
537
under painfully bright lights, for twelve- to fourteen-hour shifts, in
538
overheated factories, with too few bathroom breaks, and restricted
539
access to water (to reduce the need for more bathroom breaks), which is
540
often foul and unfit for human consumption in any event." The purpose
541
is "to maximise the amount of profit that could be wrung out" of the
542
workers, with the "time allocated to each task" being calculated in
543
"units of ten thousands of a second." [Joel Bakan, The Corporation, pp.
544
66-7] While in the developed world the forms of control are, in
545
general, nowhere as extreme (in thanks due to hard won labour
546
organising and struggle) the basic principle is the same. Only a
547
sophist would argue that the workers "owned" themselves and abilities
548
for the period in question -- yet this is what the advocates of
549
"self-ownership" do argue.
550
551
So if by the term "self-ownership" it is meant "individual autonomy"
552
then, no, capitalism is not based on it. Ironically, the theory of
553
"self-ownership" is used to undercut and destroy genuine self-ownership
554
during working hours (and, potentially, elsewhere). The logic is
555
simple. As I own myself I am, therefore, able to sell myself as well,
556
although few advocates of "self-ownership" are as blunt as this (as we
557
discuss in [9]section F.2.2 right-libertarian Robert Nozick accepts
558
that voluntary slavery flows from this principle). Instead they stress
559
that we "own" our labour and we contract them to others to use. Yet,
560
unlike other forms of property, labour cannot be alienated. Therefore
561
when you sell your labour you sell yourself, your liberty, for the time
562
in question. By alienating your labour power, you alienate the
563
substance of your being, your personality, for the time in question.
564
565
As such, "self-ownership" ironically becomes the means of justifying
566
authoritarian social relationships which deny the autonomy it claims to
567
defend. Indeed, these relationships have similarities with slavery, the
568
very thing which its advocates like to contrast "self-ownership" to.
569
While modern defenders of capitalism deny this, classical economist
570
James Mill let the cat out of the bag by directly comparing the two. It
571
is worthwhile to quote him at length:
572
573
"The great capitalist, the owner of a manufactory, if he operated
574
with slaves instead of free labourers, like the West India planter,
575
would be regarded as owner both of the capital, and of the labour.
576
He would be owner, in short, of both instruments of production: and
577
the whole of the produce, without participation, would be his own.
578
579
"What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by
580
means of labourers receiving wages? The labourer, who receives
581
wages, sells his labour for a day, a week, a month, or a year, as
582
the case may be. The manufacturer, who pays these wages, buys the
583
labour, for the day, the year, or whatever period it may be. He is
584
equally therefore the owner of the labour, with the manufacturer who
585
operates with slaves. The only difference is, in the mode of
586
purchasing. The owner of the slave purchases, at once, the whole of
587
the labour, which the man can ever perform: he, who pays wages,
588
purchases only so much of a man's labour as he can perform in a day,
589
or any other stipulated time. Being equally, however, the owner of
590
the labour, so purchased, as the owner of the slave is of that of
591
the slave, the produce, which is the result of this labour, combined
592
with his capital, is all equally his own. In the state of society,
593
in which we at present exist, it is in these circumstances that
594
almost all production is effected: the capitalist is the owner of
595
both instruments of production: and the whole of the produce is
596
his."
597
["Elements of Political Economy" quoted by David Ellerman, Property
598
and Contract in Economics, pp. 53-4
599
600
Thus the only "difference" between slavery and capitalist labour is the
601
"mode of purchasing." The labour itself and its product in both cases
602
is owned by the "great capitalist." Clearly this is a case of, to use
603
Rothbard's words, during working hours the worker "has little or no
604
right to self-ownership; his person and his produce are systematically
605
expropriated by his master." Little wonder anarchists have tended to
606
call wage labour by the more accurate term "wage slavery." For the
607
duration of the working day the boss owns the labour power of the
608
worker. As this cannot be alienated from its "owner" this means that
609
the boss effectively owns the worker -- and keeps the product of their
610
labour for the privilege of so doing!
611
612
There are key differences of course. At the time, slavery was not a
613
voluntary decision and the slaves could not change their master
614
(although in some cultures, such as Ancient Rome, people over the could
615
sell themselves in slavery while "voluntary slavery is sanctioned in
616
the Bible." [Ellerman, Op. Cit., p. 115 and p. 114]). Yet the fact that
617
under wage slavery people are not forced to take a specific job and can
618
change masters does not change the relations of authority created
619
between the two parties. As we note in the [10]next section, the
620
objection that people can leave their jobs just amounts to saying "love
621
it or leave it!" and does not address the issue at hand. The vast
622
majority of the population cannot avoid wage labour and remain wage
623
workers for most of their adult lives. It is virtually impossible to
624
distinguish being able to sell your liberty/labour piecemeal over a
625
lifetime from alienating your whole lifetime's labour at one go.
626
Changing who you alienate your labour/liberty to does not change the
627
act and experience of alienation.
628
629
Thus the paradox of self-ownership. It presupposes autonomy only in
630
order to deny it. In order to enter a contract, the worker exercises
631
autonomy in deciding whether it is advantageous to rent or sell his or
632
her property (their labour power) for use by another (and given that
633
the alternative is, at best, poverty unsurprisingly people do consider
634
it "advantageous" to "consent" to the contract). Yet what is rented or
635
sold is not a piece of property but rather a self-governing individual.
636
Once the contract is made and the property rights are transferred, they
637
no longer have autonomy and are treated like any other factor of
638
production or commodity.
639
640
In the "self-ownership" thesis this is acceptable due to its assumption
641
that people and their labour power are property. Yet the worker cannot
642
send along their labour by itself to an employer. By its very nature,
643
the worker has to be present in the workplace if this "property" is to
644
be put to use by the person who has bought it. The consequence of
645
contracting out your labour (your property in the person) is that your
646
autonomy (liberty) is restricted, if not destroyed, depending on the
647
circumstances of the particular contract signed. This is because
648
employers hire people, not a piece of property.
649
650
So far from being based on the "right to self-ownership," then,
651
capitalism effectively denies it, alienating the individual from such
652
basic rights as free speech, independent thought, and self-management
653
of one's own activity, which individuals have to give up when they are
654
employed. But since these rights, according to Rothbard, are the
655
products of humans as humans, wage labour alienates them from
656
themselves, exactly as it does the individual's labour power and
657
creativity. For you do not sell your skills, as these skills are part
658
of you. Instead, what you have to sell is your time, your labour power,
659
and so yourself. Thus under wage labour, rights of "self-ownership" are
660
always placed below property rights, the only "right" being left to you
661
is that of finding another job (although even this right is denied in
662
some countries if the employee owes the company money).
663
664
It should be stressed that this is not a strange paradox of the
665
"self-ownership" axiom. Far from it. The doctrine was most famously
666
expounded by John Locke, who argued that "every Man has a Property in
667
his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself." However, a
668
person can sell, "for a certain time, the Service he undertakes to do,
669
in exchange for Wages he is to receive." The buyer of the labour then
670
owns both it and its product. "Thus the Grass my Horse has bit; the
671
Turfs my Servant has cut; and the Ore I have digg'd in any place where
672
I have a right to them in common with others, becomes my Property,
673
without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was
674
mine . . . hath fixed my Property in them." [Second Treatise on
675
Government, Section 27, Section 85 and Section 28]
676
677
Thus a person (the servant) becomes the equivalent of an animal (the
678
horse) once they have sold their labour to the boss. Wage labour denies
679
the basic humanity and autonomy of the worker. Rather than being
680
equals, private property produces relations of domination and
681
alienation. Proudhon compared this to an association in which, "while
682
the partnership lasts, the profits and losses are divided between them;
683
since each produces, not for himself, but for the society; when the
684
time of distribution arrives it is not the producer who is considered,
685
but the associated. That is why the slave, to whom the planter gives
686
straw and rice; and the civilised labour, to whom the capitalist pays a
687
salary which is always too small, -- not being associated with their
688
employers, although producing with them, -- are disregarded when the
689
product is divided. Thus the horse who draws our coaches . . . produce
690
with us, but are not associated with us; we take their product but do
691
not share it with them. The animals and labourers whom we employ hold
692
the same relation to us." [What is Property?, p. 226]
693
694
So while the capitalist Locke sees nothing wrong in comparing a person
695
to an animal, the anarchist Proudhon objects to the fundamental
696
injustice of a system which turns a person into a resource for another
697
to use. And we do mean resource, as the self-ownership thesis is also
698
the means by which the poor become little more than spare parts for the
699
wealthy. After all, the poor own their bodies and, consequently, can
700
sell all or part of it to a willing party. This means that someone in
701
dire economic necessity can sell parts of their body to the rich.
702
Ultimately, "[t]o tell a poor man that he has property because he has
703
arms and legs -- that the hunger from which he suffers, and his power
704
to sleep in the open air are his property, -- is to play upon words,
705
and to add insult to injury." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 80]
706
707
Obviously the ability to labour is not the property of a person -- it
708
is their possession. Use and ownership are fused and cannot be
709
separated out. As such, anarchists argue that the history of capitalism
710
shows that there is a considerable difference whether one said (like
711
the defenders of capitalism) that slavery is wrong because every person
712
has a natural right to the property of their own body, or because every
713
person has a natural right freely to determine their own destiny (like
714
the anarchists). The first kind of right is alienable and in the
715
context of a capitalist regime ensures that the many labour for those
716
who own the means of life. The second kind of right is inalienable as
717
long as a person remained a person and, therefore, liberty or
718
self-determination is not a claim to ownership which might be both
719
acquired and surrendered, but an inextricable aspect of the activity of
720
being human.
721
722
The anarchist position on the inalienable nature of human liberty also
723
forms the basis for the excluded to demand access to the means
724
necessary to labour. "From the distinction between possession and
725
property," argued Proudhon, "arise two sorts of rights: the jus in re,
726
the right in a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the property
727
which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and jus ad rem, the
728
right to a thing, which gives me a claim to become a proprietor . . .
729
In the first, possession and property are united; the second includes
730
only naked property. With me who, as a labourer, have a right to the
731
possession of the products of Nature and my own industry -- and who, as
732
a proletaire, enjoy none of them -- it is by virtue of the jus de rem
733
that I demand admittance to the jus in re." [Op. Cit., p. 65] Thus to
734
make the self-ownership of labour and its products a reality for those
735
who do the actual work in society rather than a farce, property must be
736
abolished -- both in terms of the means of life and also in defining
737
liberty and what it means to be free.
738
739
So, contrary to Rothbard's claim, capitalism in practice uses the
740
rhetoric of self-ownership to alienate the right to genuine
741
self-ownership because of the authoritarian structure of the workplace,
742
which derives from private property. If we desire real self-ownership,
743
we cannot renounce it for most of our adult lives by becoming wage
744
slaves. Only workers' self-management of production, not capitalism,
745
can make self-ownership a reality:
746
747
"They speak of 'inherent rights', 'inalienable rights', 'natural
748
rights,' etc . . . Unless the material conditions for equality
749
exist, it is worse than mockery to pronounce men equal. And unless
750
there is equality (and by equality I mean equal chances for every
751
one to make the most of himself [or herself]) unless, I say, these
752
equal changes exist, freedom, either of though, speech, or action,
753
is equally a mockery . . . As long as the working-people . . . tramp
754
the streets, whose stones they lay, whose filth they clean, whose
755
sewers they dig, yet upon which they must not stand too long lest
756
the policeman bid them 'move on'; as long as they go from factory to
757
factory, begging for the opportunity to be a slave, receiving the
758
insults of bosses and foreman, getting the old 'no,' the old shake
759
of the head, in these factories they built, whose machines they
760
wrought; so long as they consent to be herd like cattle, in the
761
cities, driven year after year, more and more, off the mortgaged
762
land, the land they cleared, fertilised, cultivated, rendered of
763
value . . . so long as they continue to do these things vaguely
764
relying upon some power outside themselves, be it god, or priest, or
765
politician, or employer, or charitable society, to remedy matters,
766
so long deliverance will be delayed. When they conceive the
767
possibility of a complete international federation of labour, whose
768
constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories,
769
all the instruments of production . . . , in short, conduct their
770
own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or
771
employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught
772
-- Self-Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech
773
[along with their other rights] (and no paper guarantee needed)."
774
[Voltairine de Cleyre, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, pp. 4-6]
775
776
To conclude, the idea that capitalism is based on self-ownership is
777
radically at odds with reality if, by self-ownership, it is meant
778
self-determination or individual autonomy. However, this is not
779
surprising given that the rationale behind the self-ownership thesis is
780
precisely to justify capitalist hierarchy and its resulting
781
restrictions on liberty. Rather than being a defence of liberty,
782
self-ownership is designed to facilitate its erosion. In order to make
783
the promise of autonomy implied by the concept of "self-ownership" a
784
reality, private property will need to be abolished.
785
786
For more discussion of the limitations, contradictions and fallacies of
787
defining liberty in terms of self-ownership and property rights, see
788
[11]section F.2.
789
790
B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!
791
792
Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary"
793
undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to
794
past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest), the
795
control of the state by the capitalist class plus the tendency for
796
capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast
797
wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. Thus denial
798
of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the
799
principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly
800
points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally
801
are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people
802
is more than 'theft' . . . it is outright homicide." [Remaking Society,
803
p. 187]
804
805
David Ellerman has also noted that the past use of force has resulted
806
in the majority being limited to those options allowed to them by the
807
powers that be:
808
809
"It is a veritable mainstay of capitalist thought . . . that the
810
moral flaws of chattel slavery have not survived in capitalism since
811
the workers, unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary
812
wage contracts. But it is only that, in the case of capitalism, the
813
denial of natural rights is less complete so that the worker has a
814
residual legal personality as a free 'commodity owner.' He is thus
815
allowed to voluntarily put his own working life to traffic. When a
816
robber denies another person's right to make an infinite number of
817
other choices besides losing his money or his life and the denial is
818
backed up by a gun, then this is clearly robbery even though it
819
might be said that the victim making a 'voluntary choice' between
820
his remaining options. When the legal system itself denies the
821
natural rights of working people in the name of the prerogatives of
822
capital, and this denial is sanctioned by the legal violence of the
823
state, then the theorists of 'libertarian' capitalism do not
824
proclaim institutional robbery, but rather they celebrate the
825
'natural liberty' of working people to choose between the remaining
826
options of selling their labour as a commodity and being
827
unemployed." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, p. 186]
828
829
Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker
830
being separated from the means of production. The natural basis of
831
capitalism is wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but
832
to sell their skills, labour and time to those who do own the means of
833
production. In advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the
834
working population are self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in
835
the USA and Canada - however, this figure includes employers as well,
836
meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller!).
837
Hence for the vast majority, the labour market is their only option.
838
839
Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position
840
of a serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is
841
formally "free" and "equal" under the law:
842
843
"Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the
844
serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and
845
his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a
846
serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs
847
over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any
848
conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist,
849
the industrialist, the employer. . . .The worker always has the
850
right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he
851
does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven
852
to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the
853
first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a
854
theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation,
855
and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter
856
falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply
857
a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom --
858
voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an
859
economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief interludes of
860
freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real
861
slavery." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187-8]
862
863
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general,
864
you have to work for someone. How this situation developed is, of
865
course, usually ignored. If not glossed over as irrelevant, some fairy
866
tale is spun in which a few bright people saved and worked hard to
867
accumulate capital and the lazy majority flocked to be employed by
868
these (almost superhuman) geniuses. In the words of one right-wing
869
economist (talking specifically of the industrial revolution but whose
870
argument is utilised today):
871
872
"The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take
873
a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work
874
for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they
875
were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any
876
other field open to them." [Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pp.
877
619-20]
878
879
Notice the assumptions. The workers just happen have such a terrible
880
set of options -- the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do
881
with it. And these owners just happen to have all these means of
882
production on their hands while the working class just happen to be
883
without property and, as a consequence, forced to sell their labour on
884
the owners' terms. That the state enforces capitalist property rights
885
and acts to defend the power of the owning class is just another
886
co-incidence among many. The possibility that the employing classes
887
might be directly implicated in state policies that reduced the
888
available options of workers is too ludicrous even to mention.
889
890
Yet in the real world, the power of coincidence to explain all is less
891
compelling. Here things are more grim as the owning class clearly
892
benefited from numerous acts of state violence and a general legal
893
framework which restricted the options available for the workers.
894
Apparently we are meant to believe that it is purely by strange
895
co-incidence the state was run by the wealthy and owning classes, not
896
the working class, and that a whole host of anti-labour laws and
897
practices were implemented by random chance.
898
899
It should be stressed that this nonsense, with its underlying
900
assumptions and inventions, is still being peddled today. It is being
901
repeated to combat the protests that "multinational corporations
902
exploit people in poor countries." Yes, it will be readily admitted,
903
multinationals do pay lower wages in developing countries than in rich
904
ones: that is why they go there. However, it is argued, this represents
905
economic advancement compares to what the other options available are.
906
As the corporations do not force them to work for them and they would
907
have stayed with what they were doing previously the charge of
908
exploitation is wrong. Would you, it is stressed, leave your job for
909
one with less pay and worse conditions? In fact, the bosses are doing
910
them a favour in paying such low wages for the products the companies
911
charge such high prices in the developed world for.
912
913
And so, by the same strange co-incidence that marked the industrial
914
revolution, capitalists today (in the form of multinational
915
corporations) gravitate toward states with terrible human rights
916
records. States where, at worse, death squads torture and "disappear"
917
union and peasant co-operative organisers or where, at best, attempts
918
to organise a union can get you arrested or fired and blacklisted.
919
States were peasants are being forced of their land as a result of
920
government policies which favour the big landlords. By an equally
921
strange coincidence, the foreign policy of the American and European
922
governments is devoted to making sure such anti-labour regimes stay in
923
power. It is a co-incidence, of course, that such regimes are favoured
924
by the multinationals and that these states spend so much effort in
925
providing a "market friendly" climate to tempt the corporations to set
926
up their sweatshops there. It is also, apparently, just a co-incidence
927
that these states are controlled by the local wealthy owning classes
928
and subject to economic pressure by the transnationals which invest and
929
wish to invest there.
930
931
It is clear that when a person who is mugged hands over their money to
932
the mugger they do so because they prefer it to the "next best
933
alternative." As such, it is correct that people agree to sell their
934
liberty to a boss because their "next best alternative" is worse (utter
935
poverty or starvation are not found that appealing for some reason).
936
But so what? As anarchists have been pointing out over a century, the
937
capitalists have systematically used the state to create a limit
938
options for the many, to create buyers' market for labour by skewing
939
the conditions under which workers can sell their labour in the bosses
940
favour. To then merrily answer all criticisms of this set-up with the
941
response that the workers "voluntarily agreed" to work on those terms
942
is just hypocrisy. Does it really change things if the mugger (the
943
state) is only the agent (hired thug) of another criminal (the owning
944
class)?
945
946
As such, hymns to the "free market" seem somewhat false when the
947
reality of the situation is such that workers do not need to be forced
948
at gun point to enter a specific workplace because of past (and more
949
often than not, current) "initiation of force" by the capitalist class
950
and the state which have created the objective conditions within which
951
we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market
952
contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production
953
is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" market usually gives
954
the advantage to the capitalists as a class). So while we can usually
955
pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general, cannot choose to
956
work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is tiny,
957
which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty actually is). Of
958
course, the ability to leave employment and seek it elsewhere is an
959
important freedom. However, this freedom, like most freedoms under
960
capitalism, is of limited use and hides a deeper anti-individual
961
reality.
962
963
As Karl Polanyi puts it:
964
965
"In human terms such a postulate [of a labour market] implied for
966
the worker extreme instability of earnings, utter absence of
967
professional standards, abject readiness to be shoved and pushed
968
about indiscriminately, complete dependence on the whims of the
969
market. [Ludwig Von] Mises justly argued that if workers 'did not
970
act as trade unionists, but reduced their demands and changed their
971
locations and occupations according to the labour market, they would
972
eventually find work.' This sums up the position under a system
973
based on the postulate of the commodity character of labour. It is
974
not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale,
975
to what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be
976
allowed to change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or
977
destroyed." [The Great Transformation, p. 176]
978
979
(Although we should point out that von Mises argument that workers will
980
"eventually" find work as well as being nice and vague -- how long is
981
"eventually"?, for example -- is contradicted by actual experience. As
982
the Keynesian economist Michael Stewart notes, in the nineteenth
983
century workers "who lost their jobs had to redeploy fast or starve
984
(and even this feature of the ninetheenth century economy. . . did not
985
prevent prolonged recessions)" [Keynes in the 1990s, p. 31] Workers
986
"reducing their demands" may actually worsen an economic slump, causing
987
more unemployment in the short run and lengthening the length of the
988
crisis. We address the issue of unemployment and workers "reducing
989
their demands" in more detail in [12]section C.9).
990
991
It is sometimes argued that capital needs labour, so both have an equal
992
say in the terms offered, and hence the labour market is based on
993
"liberty." But for capitalism to be based on real freedom or on true
994
free agreement, both sides of the capital/labour divide must be equal
995
in bargaining power, otherwise any agreement would favour the most
996
powerful at the expense of the other party. However, due to the
997
existence of private property and the states needed to protect it, this
998
equality is de facto impossible, regardless of the theory. This is
999
because. in general, capitalists have three advantages on the "free"
1000
labour market-- the law and state placing the rights of property above
1001
those of labour, the existence of unemployment over most of the
1002
business cycle and capitalists having more resources to fall back on.
1003
We will discuss each in turn.
1004
1005
The first advantage, namely property owners having the backing of the
1006
law and state, ensures that when workers go on strike or use other
1007
forms of direct action (or even when they try to form a union) the
1008
capitalist has the full backing of the state to employ scabs, break
1009
picket lines or fire "the ring-leaders." This obviously gives employers
1010
greater power in their bargaining position, placing workers in a weak
1011
position (a position that may make them, the workers, think twice
1012
before standing up for their rights).
1013
1014
The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures
1015
that "employers have a structural advantage in the labour market,
1016
because there are typically more candidates. . . than jobs for them to
1017
fill." This means that "[c]ompetition in labour markets us typically
1018
skewed in favour of employers: it is a buyers market. And in a buyer's
1019
market, it is the sellers who compromise. Competition for labour is not
1020
strong enough to ensure that workers' desires are always satisified."
1021
[Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American, p. 71, p. 129] If the labour
1022
market generally favours the employer, then this obviously places
1023
working people at a disadvantage as the threat of unemployment and the
1024
hardships associated with it encourages workers to take any job and
1025
submit to their bosses demands and power while employed. Unemployment,
1026
in other words, serves to discipline labour. The higher the prevailing
1027
unemployment rate, the harder it is to find a new job, which raises the
1028
cost of job loss and makes it less likely for workers to strike, join
1029
unions, or to resist employer demands, and so on.
1030
1031
As Bakunin argued, "the property owners... are likewise forced to seek
1032
out and purchase labour... but not in the same measure . . . [there is
1033
no] equality between those who offer their labour and those who
1034
purchase it." [Op. Cit., p. 183] This ensures that any "free
1035
agreements" made benefit the capitalists more than the workers (see the
1036
[13]next section on periods of full employment, when conditions tilt in
1037
favour of working people).
1038
1039
Lastly, there is the issue of inequalities in wealth and so resources.
1040
The capitalist generally has more resources to fall back on during
1041
strikes and while waiting to find employees (for example, large
1042
companies with many factories can swap production to their other
1043
factories if one goes on strike). And by having more resources to fall
1044
back on, the capitalist can hold out longer than the worker, so placing
1045
the employer in a stronger bargaining position and so ensuring labour
1046
contracts favour them. This was recognised by Adam Smith:
1047
1048
"It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers
1049
and capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the
1050
other into a compliance with their terms... In all such disputes the
1051
masters can hold out much longer... though they did not employ a
1052
single workman [the masters] could generally live a year or two upon
1053
the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not
1054
subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year
1055
without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
1056
to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so
1057
immediate. . . [I]n disputes with their workmen, masters must
1058
generally have the advantage." [Wealth of Nations, pp. 59-60]
1059
1060
How little things have changed.
1061
1062
So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for
1063
them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to
1064
sell your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but
1065
the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is
1066
(usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free
1067
agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in the workers
1068
submitting to domination and exploitation. This is why anarchists
1069
support collective organisation (such as unions) and resistance (such
1070
as strikes), direct action and solidarity to make us as, if not more,
1071
powerful than our exploiters and win important reforms and improvements
1072
(and, ultimately, change society), even when faced with the
1073
disadvantages on the labour market we have indicated. The despotism
1074
associated with property (to use Proudhon's expression) is resisted by
1075
those subject to it and, needless to say, the boss does not always win.
1076
1077
B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour?
1078
1079
Of course there are periods when the demand for labour exceeds supply,
1080
but these periods hold the seeds of depression for capitalism, as
1081
workers are in an excellent position to challenge, both individually
1082
and collectively, their allotted role as commodities. This point is
1083
discussed in more detail in section C.7 ([14]What causes the capitalist
1084
business cycle? ) and so we will not do so here. For now it's enough to
1085
point out that during normal times (i.e. over most of the business
1086
cycle), capitalists often enjoy extensive authority over workers, an
1087
authority deriving from the unequal bargaining power between capital
1088
and labour, as noted by Adam Smith and many others.
1089
1090
However, this changes during times of high demand for labour. To
1091
illustrate, let us assume that supply and demand approximate each
1092
other. It is clear that such a situation is only good for the worker.
1093
Bosses cannot easily fire a worker as there is no one to replace them
1094
and the workers, either collectively by solidarity or individually by
1095
"exit" (i.e. quitting and moving to a new job), can ensure a boss
1096
respects their interests and, indeed, can push these interests to the
1097
full. The boss finds it hard to keep their authority intact or from
1098
stopping wages rising and causing a profits squeeze. In other words, as
1099
unemployment drops, workers power increases.
1100
1101
Looking at it another way, giving someone the right to hire and fire an
1102
input into a production process vests that individual with considerable
1103
power over that input unless it is costless for that input to move;
1104
that is unless the input is perfectly mobile. This is only approximated
1105
in real life for labour during periods of full employment, and so
1106
perfect mobility of labour costs problems for a capitalist firm because
1107
under such conditions workers are not dependent on a particular
1108
capitalist and so the level of worker effort is determined far more by
1109
the decisions of workers (either collectively or individually) than by
1110
managerial authority. The threat of firing cannot be used as a threat
1111
to increase effort, and hence production, and so full employment
1112
increases workers power.
1113
1114
With the capitalist firm being a fixed commitment of resources, this
1115
situation is intolerable. Such times are bad for business and so occur
1116
rarely with free market capitalism (we must point out that in
1117
neo-classical economics, it is assumed that all inputs - including
1118
capital - are perfectly mobile and so the theory ignores reality and
1119
assumes away capitalist production itself!).
1120
1121
During the last period of capitalist boom, the post-war period, we can
1122
see the breakdown of capitalist authority and the fear this held for
1123
the ruling elite. The Trilateral Commission's 1975 report, which
1124
attempted to "understand" the growing discontent among the general
1125
population, makes our point well. In periods of full employment,
1126
according to the report, there is "an excess of democracy." In other
1127
words, due to the increased bargaining power workers gained during a
1128
period of high demand for labour, people started thinking about and
1129
acting upon their needs as humans, not as commodities embodying labour
1130
power. This naturally had devastating effects on capitalist and statist
1131
authority: "People no longer felt the same compulsion to obey those
1132
whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age,
1133
rank, status, expertise, character, or talent".
1134
1135
This loosening of the bonds of compulsion and obedience led to
1136
"previously passive or unorganised groups in the population, blacks,
1137
Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students and women...
1138
embark[ing] on concerted efforts to establish their claims to
1139
opportunities, rewards, and privileges, which they had not considered
1140
themselves entitled to before."
1141
1142
Such an "excess" of participation in politics of course posed a serious
1143
threat to the status quo, since for the elites who authored the report,
1144
it was considered axiomatic that "the effective operation of a
1145
democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and
1146
non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups. . . . In
1147
itself, this marginality on the part of some groups is inherently
1148
undemocratic, but it is also one of the factors which has enabled
1149
democracy to function effectively." Such a statement reveals the
1150
hollowness of the establishment's concept of 'democracy,' which in
1151
order to function effectively (i.e. to serve elite interests) must be
1152
"inherently undemocratic."
1153
1154
Any period where people feel empowered allows them to communicate with
1155
their fellows, identify their needs and desires, and resist those
1156
forces that deny their freedom to manage their own lives. Such
1157
resistance strikes a deadly blow at the capitalist need to treat people
1158
as commodities, since (to re-quote Polanyi) people no longer feel that
1159
it "is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for
1160
sale, to what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be
1161
allowed to change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or
1162
destroyed." Instead, as thinking and feeling people, they act to
1163
reclaim their freedom and humanity.
1164
1165
As noted at the beginning of this section, the economic effects of such
1166
periods of empowerment and revolt are discussed in [15]section C.7. We
1167
will end by quoting the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who noted that
1168
a continuous capitalist boom would not be in the interests of the
1169
ruling class. In 1943, in response to the more optimistic Keynesians,
1170
he noted that "to maintain the high level of employment. . . in the
1171
subsequent boom, a strong opposition of 'business leaders' is likely to
1172
be encountered. . . lasting full employment is not at all to their
1173
liking. The workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of
1174
industry' would be anxious 'to teach them a lesson'" because "under a
1175
regime of permanent full employment, 'the sack' would cease to play its
1176
role as a disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would
1177
be undermined and the self assurance and class consciousness of the
1178
working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements
1179
in conditions of work would create political tension. . . 'discipline
1180
in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated by
1181
business leaders than profits. Their class interest tells them that
1182
lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view and that
1183
unemployment is an integral part of the normal capitalist system."
1184
[quoted by Malcolm C. Sawyer, The Economics of Michal Kalecki, p. 139
1185
and p. 138]
1186
1187
Therefore, periods when the demand for labour outstrips supply are not
1188
healthy for capitalism, as they allow people to assert their freedom
1189
and humanity -- both fatal to the system. This is why news of large
1190
numbers of new jobs sends the stock market plunging and why capitalists
1191
are so keen these days to maintain a "natural" rate of unemployment
1192
(that it has to be maintained indicates that it is not "natural").
1193
Kalecki, we must point out, also correctly predicted the rise of "a
1194
powerful bloc" between "big business and the rentier interests" against
1195
full employment and that "they would probably find more than one
1196
economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound." The
1197
resulting "pressure of all these forces, and in particular big
1198
business" would "induce the Government to return to. . . orthodox
1199
policy." [Kalecki, quoted by Sawyer, Op. Cit., p. 140] This is exactly
1200
what happened in the 1970s, with the monetarists and other sections of
1201
the "free market" right providing the ideological support for the
1202
business lead class war, and whose "theories" (when applied) promptly
1203
generated massive unemployment, thus teaching the working class the
1204
required lesson.
1205
1206
So, although detrimental to profit-making, periods of recession and
1207
high unemployment are not only unavoidable but are necessary to
1208
capitalism in order to "discipline" workers and "teach them a lesson."
1209
And in all, it is little wonder that capitalism rarely produces periods
1210
approximating full employment -- they are not in its interests (see
1211
also section [16]C.9). The dynamics of capitalism makes recession and
1212
unemployment inevitable, just as it makes class struggle (which creates
1213
these dynamics) inevitable.
1214
1215
B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!
1216
1217
It is ironic that supporters of laissez-faire capitalism, such as
1218
"Libertarians" and "anarcho"-capitalists, should claim that they want
1219
to be "left alone," since capitalism never allows this. As Max Stirner
1220
expressed it:
1221
1222
"Restless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm
1223
enjoyment. We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . ." [Max
1224
Stirner The Ego and Its Own, p. 268]
1225
1226
Capitalism cannot let us "take breath" simply because it needs to grow
1227
or die, which puts constant pressure on both workers and capitalists
1228
(see [17]section D.4.1). Workers can never relax or be free of anxiety
1229
about losing their jobs, because if they do not work, they do not eat,
1230
nor can they ensure that their children will get a better life. Within
1231
the workplace, they are not "left alone" by their bosses in order to
1232
manage their own activities. Instead, they are told what to do, when to
1233
do it and how to do it. Indeed, the history of experiments in workers'
1234
control and self-management within capitalist companies confirms our
1235
claims that, for the worker, capitalism is incompatible with the desire
1236
to be "left alone." As an illustration we will use the "Pilot Program"
1237
conducted by General Electric between 1968 and 1972.
1238
1239
General Electric proposed the "Pilot Program" as a means of overcoming
1240
the problems they faced with introducing Numeric Control (N/C)
1241
machinery into its plant at Lynn River Works, Massachusetts. Faced with
1242
rising tensions on the shop floor, bottle-necks in production and
1243
low-quality products, GE management tried a scheme of "job enrichment"
1244
based on workers' control of production in one area of the plant. By
1245
June 1970 the workers' involved were "on their own" (as one manager put
1246
it) and "[i]n terms of group job enlargement this was when the Pilot
1247
Project really began, with immediate results in increased output and
1248
machine utilisation, and a reduction on manufacturing losses. As one
1249
union official remarked two years later, 'The fact that we broke down a
1250
traditional policy of GE [that the union could never have a hand in
1251
managing the business] was in itself satisfying, especially when we
1252
could throw success up to them to boot.'" [David Noble, Forces of
1253
Production, p. 295]
1254
1255
The project, after some initial scepticism, proved to be a great
1256
success with the workers involved. Indeed, other workers in the factory
1257
desired to be included and the union soon tried to get it spread
1258
throughout the plant and into other GE locations. The success of the
1259
scheme was that it was based on workers' managing their own affairs
1260
rather than being told what to do by their bosses -- "We are human
1261
beings," said one worker, "and want to be treated as such." [quoted by
1262
Noble, Op. Cit., p. 292] To be fully human means to be free to govern
1263
oneself in all aspects of life, including production.
1264
1265
However, just after a year of the workers being given control over
1266
their working lives, management stopped the project. Why? "In the eyes
1267
of some management supporters of the 'experiment,' the Pilot Program
1268
was terminated because management as a whole refused to give up any of
1269
its traditional authority . . . [t]he Pilot Program foundered on the
1270
basic contradiction of capitalist production: Who's running the shop?"
1271
[Noble, Op. Cit., p. 318]
1272
1273
Noble goes on to argue that to GE's top management, "the union's desire
1274
to extend the program appeared as a step toward greater workers control
1275
over production and, as such, a threat to the traditional authority
1276
rooted in private ownership of the means of production. Thus the
1277
decision to terminate represented a defence not only of the
1278
prerogatives of production supervisors and plant managers but also of
1279
the power vested in property ownership." He notes that this result was
1280
not an isolated case and that the "demise of the GE Pilot Program
1281
followed the typical pattern for such 'job enrichment experiments'"
1282
[Op. Cit., p. 318 and p. 320] Even though "[s]everal dozen
1283
well-documented experiments show that productivity increases and social
1284
problems decrease when workers participate in the work decisions
1285
affecting their lives" [Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1286
study quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 322] such schemes are ended by
1287
bosses seeking to preserve their own power, the power that flows from
1288
private property.
1289
1290
As one worker in the GE Pilot Program stated, "[w]e just want to be
1291
left alone." They were not -- capitalist social relations prohibit such
1292
a possibility (as Noble correctly notes, "the 'way of life' for the
1293
management meant controlling the lives of others" [Op. Cit., p. 294 and
1294
p. 300]). In spite of improved productivity, projects in workers'
1295
control are scrapped because they undermined both the power of the
1296
capitalists -- and by undermining their power, you potentially
1297
undermine their profits too ("If we're all one, for manufacturing
1298
reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably, just like a co-op
1299
business." [GE Pilot Program worker, quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p.
1300
295]).
1301
1302
As we argue in more detail in [18]section J.5.12, profit maximisation
1303
can work against efficiency, meaning that capitalism can harm the
1304
overall economy by promoting less efficient production techniques (i.e.
1305
hierarchical ones against egalitarian ones) because it is in the
1306
interests of capitalists to do so and the capitalist market rewards
1307
that behaviour. This is because, ultimately, profits are unpaid labour.
1308
If you empower labour, give workers' control over their work then they
1309
will increase efficiency and productivity (they know how to do their
1310
job the best) but you also erode authority structures within the
1311
workplace. Workers' will seek more and more control (freedom naturally
1312
tries to grow) and this, as the Pilot Program worker clearly saw,
1313
implies a co-operative workplace in which workers', not managers,
1314
decide what to do with the surplus produced. By threatening power, you
1315
threaten profits (or, more correctly, who controls the profit and where
1316
it goes). With the control over production and who gets to control any
1317
surplus in danger, it is unsurprising that companies soon abandon such
1318
schemes and return to the old, less efficient, hierarchical schemes
1319
based on "Do what you are told, for as long as you are told." Such a
1320
regime is hardly fit for free people and, as Noble notes, the regime
1321
that replaced the GE Pilot Program was "designed to 'break' the pilots
1322
of their new found 'habits' of self-reliance, self-discipline, and
1323
self-respect." [Op. Cit., p. 307]
1324
1325
Thus the experience of workers' control project within capitalist firms
1326
indicates well that capitalism cannot "leave you alone" if you are a
1327
wage slave.
1328
1329
Moreover, capitalists themselves cannot relax because they must ensure
1330
their workers' productivity rises faster than their workers' wages,
1331
otherwise their business will fail (see sections [19]C.2 and [20]C.3).
1332
This means that every company has to innovate or be left behind, to be
1333
put out of business or work. Hence the boss is not "left alone" --
1334
their decisions are made under the duress of market forces, of the
1335
necessities imposed by competition on individual capitalists. Restless
1336
acquisition -- in this context, the necessity to accumulate capital in
1337
order to survive in the market -- always haunts the capitalist. And
1338
since unpaid labour is the key to capitalist expansion, work must
1339
continue to exist and grow -- necessitating the boss to control the
1340
working hours of the worker to ensure that they produce more goods than
1341
they receive in wages. The boss is not "left alone" nor do they leave
1342
the worker alone.
1343
1344
These facts, based upon the authority relations associated with private
1345
property and relentless competition, ensure that the desire to be "left
1346
alone" cannot be satisfied under capitalism.
1347
1348
As Murray Bookchin observes:
1349
1350
"Despite their assertions of autonomy and distrust of state
1351
authority . . . classical liberal thinkers did not in the last
1352
instance hold to the notion that the individual is completely free
1353
from lawful guidance. Indeed, their interpretation of autonomy
1354
actually presupposed quite definite arrangements beyond the
1355
individual -- notably, the laws of the marketplace. Individual
1356
autonomy to the contrary, these laws constitute a social organising
1357
system in which all 'collections of individuals' are held under the
1358
sway of the famous 'invisible hand' of competition. Paradoxically,
1359
the laws of the marketplace override the exercise of 'free will' by
1360
the same sovereign individuals who otherwise constitute the
1361
"collection of individuals." ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension
1362
of Anarchism", pp. 1-17, Democracy and Nature no. 8, p. 4]
1363
1364
Human interaction is an essential part of life. Anarchism proposes to
1365
eliminate only undesired social interactions and authoritarian
1366
impositions, which are inherent in capitalism and indeed in any
1367
hierarchical form of socio-economic organisation (e.g. state
1368
socialism). Hermits soon become less than human, as social interaction
1369
enriches and develops individuality. Capitalism may attempt to reduce
1370
us to hermits, only "connected" by the market, but such a denial of our
1371
humanity and individuality inevitably feeds the spirit of revolt. In
1372
practice the "laws" of the market and the hierarchy of capital will
1373
never "leave one alone," but instead, crush one's individuality and
1374
freedom. Yet this aspect of capitalism conflicts with the human
1375
"instinct for freedom," as Noam Chomsky describes it, and hence there
1376
arises a counter-tendency toward radicalisation and rebellion among any
1377
oppressed people (see [21]section J).
1378
1379
One last point. The desire to "be left alone" often expresses two
1380
drastically different ideas -- the wish to be your own master and
1381
manage your own affairs and the desire by bosses and landlords to have
1382
more power over their property. However, the authority exercised by
1383
such owners over their property is also exercised over those who use
1384
that property. Therefore, the notion of "being left alone" contains two
1385
contradictory aspects within a class ridden and hierarchical society.
1386
Obviously anarchists are sympathetic to the first, inherently
1387
libertarian, aspect -- the desire to manage your own life, in your own
1388
way -- but we reject the second aspect and any implication that it is
1389
in the interests of the governed to leave those in power alone. Rather,
1390
it is in the interest of the governed to subject those with authority
1391
over them to as much control as possible -- for obvious reasons.
1392
1393
Therefore, working people are more or less free to the extent that they
1394
restrict the ability of their bosses to be "left alone." One of the
1395
aims of anarchists within a capitalist society is ensure that those in
1396
power are not "left alone" to exercise their authority over those
1397
subject to it. We see solidarity, direct action and workplace and
1398
community organisation as a means of interfering with the authority of
1399
the state, capitalists and property owners until such time as we can
1400
destroy such authoritarian social relationships once and for all.
1401
1402
Hence anarchist dislike of the term "laissez-faire" -- within a class
1403
society it can only mean protecting the powerful against the working
1404
class (under the banner of "neutrally" enforcing property rights and so
1405
the power derived from them). However, we are well aware of the other,
1406
libertarian, vision expressed in the desire to be "left alone." That is
1407
the reason we have discussed why capitalist society can never actually
1408
achieve that desire -- it is handicapped by its hierarchical and
1409
competitive nature -- and how such a desire can be twisted into a means
1410
of enhancing the power of the few over the many.
1411
1412
References
1413
1414
1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
1415
2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html#secb43
1416
3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
1417
4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB3.html
1418
5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD1.html
1419
6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html#secb43
1420
7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca28
1421
8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html
1422
9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF2.html#secf22
1423
10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html#secb43
1424
11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF2.html
1425
12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC9.html
1426
13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html#secb44
1427
14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
1428
15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
1429
16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC9.html
1430
17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD4.html#secd41
1431
18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj512
1432
19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC2.html
1433
20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC3.html
1434
21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJcon.html
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1