The question of Capitalism is more than just a question of wage-labor but more of a question regarding the whole package that comes with the word. Anarchists tend to be speak of Capitalism in the historical sense: Actually existing, presently observable Capitalism. An-Caps tend to speak of Capitalism is an ideal, clean Capitalism version (one with out misery and napalm, as you say). Ive seen An-Caps describe Capitalism as being the voluntary interaction of two persons for mutual gain; but this definition is somewhat useless and has nothing to do with what we are talking about (one would need some crazy mental gymnastics to read Das Kapital and think Marx was criticizing voluntary interaction for one). If we are to speak about historical, presently existing Capitalism then many An-Caps may find things to agree with us: Most property titles today were obtained by some form of theft or another, corporate subsidies distort the market in favor of big business, patents and intellectual property are exploitative, many An-Caps tend to argue their Capitalism would be more egalitarian and etc. So we can agree that historical Capitalism has been terrible. [There are some An-Caps and other right-libertarians who do some awful apology for modern corporations and inequality however, which leads us to question how sincere you truly are about your opposition to modern society; but lets ignore those for the moment]. The question then goes to ideal Capitalism. Can a Capitalism where property is obtained via fair homesteading exist, as An-Caps imagine? Can it be consistent with Anarchist ideals? First of all we have to define what Capitalism and Anarchism (in the abstract) are in the first place. As Malatesta put it, the main plank of Anarchism is the removal of violence from social relations. This is an idea that the broad tradition of Communist, Mutualist and Individualist Anarchists have held alike, and an idea that An-Caps tend to use to justify their view as well (the NAP as you call it). So lets use this. Capital in Socialist and Anarchist terminology (as opposed to Neoclassical terminology) means self-expanding value obtained via hiring wage-labor. A Capitalist wakes up with a sum of accumulated money (M), with which he buys labor-power and means of production that produce a commodity (C) which is sold for more money (M). M-C-M. The Capitalist mode of production is the society in which wage-labor is the main relation of production, where there is generalized wage-labor and nearly all production is obtained to accumulate Capital. Note how this notion is divorced from the idea of a free market. Generalized wage-labor does not require markets, as centrally planned State-Capitalism has proven, and at the same time markets do not necessarily imply Capitalism. Private-Capitalism as we know it is a specific type of market economy and not markets in general. This notion is also divorced from the idea of isolated and voluntary wage-labor that you picture: Capitalism is not when you agree to mow the neighbours lawn for 15 dollars, Capitalism is when we have an entire society built around generalized wage-labor with an observable rate of profit (M). A society of generalized wage-labor can only exist if the vast majority of the means of production are owned by a minority (the Capitalists, buyers of labor-power) and the rest are somewhat dispossessed: Why would you work for others when you could self-employ or work co-operatively and keep the profit of what you produce? Why would pretty much everyone work for others, unless they have no option not to? Now we reach the crux of the matter: Capitalistic private property. When nearly all means of production are owned by Capitalists and the rest are dispossessed (and hence forced to be wage-laborers), we have Capitalistic private property. In the real world, Capitalist private propert was established via violence, by the process of primitive accumulation: Land was forcefully enclosed and taken from the peasants that owned it, mercantile monopolies broke the small producers and obtained gigantic fortunes, foreign populations were enslaved and stolen from in order to accumulate wealth; and thus a society of property owners with huge sums of accumulated wealth and of a dispossessed majority that was forcefully kicked out of their means of production was formed. The story of Capitalism was written in letters of blood and fire, as Marx put it. However, we are not dealing with real Capitalism right now, but ideal Capitalism. Suppose all property is obtained via homesteading and trade, is it possible for wage-labor to arise voluntarily in such a situation? This idea relies on the notion that the An-Cap idea of property rights is fair and voluntary in the first place. When we tend to argue for the end of Capitalist property, An-Caps tend to argue this would be violent and authoritarian, but they are assuming that Capitalist property is legitimate: If property isnt legitimate, then abolishing it isnt aggressive (maintaining it would be). For example most An-Caps today dont see intellectual property as legitimate and wouldnt care if it were abolished, we Anarchists simply take our analysis much further and also question ownership over land, mines, fields and factories. So now lets look at the homesteading theory of property: Can it justify the private ownership of land and generalized wage-labor? We Anarchists argue that even in ideal terms, no it cant. First of, the idea of self-ownership and homesteading is in direct contradiction with the private ownership of land. Land (that is, physical space and the natural resources contained in it) is a fixed-supply resource that is not created by any one person. Suppose all land in a country has been already been taken by the first generation of homesteaders, those who arrive late will do what exactly? Theyll either have to leave or be forced to pay a tribute (rent) to the property owners in order to have a place to stand. As land is a fixed supply that is not the fruit of anyones labor, taking one piece of land implies removing the rights of others to take that piece of land aswell; which inevitably means you will have unequal homesteading rights and unequal freedoms. In a state of nature, all land and natural resources (all means of production so to speak) are of free access to everyone: Everyone can hunt and gather in the forests, fish in the lakes, mine the mines and etc. However, if one person decides to occupy a piece of land to build his house and live in there, or he uses one specific part of the forest to himself, he isnt causing anyone trouble. His possession and use of this land makes his ownership evident to all, and anyone wanting to kick him out would need to use violence in order to kick him out. But now lets suppose another individual wants to take the whole forest to himself, or an entire piece of land he does not use to himself; and charge a tribute (a rent or a tax) to those who want to use those. This person would have to use force to keep people off that property (rpoperty they used to have free access to), property over land and resources one does not use will require aggressive force to maintain. This means that if we are to allow people to own land to live in peace, we must draw the line somewhere, absolute or absentee private ownership of property is not in any way compatible with a voluntary society. We Anarchists argue that the line must be drawn on the limit of occupancy-and-use, that is, we should allow possession rather than property. People must have a right to own a piece of land to live in piece, a piece of the forest to sustain themselves (their means of life, so to speak); but the moment they try to maintain more than than not only will they break the rights of others but they will need violent force to maintain this property. Absolute private property is not compatible with a non-coercive society, only occupancy-and-use, or POSSESSION, is. If we are to use Malatestas definition of Anarchism, then possession is the only viable standard for property, and occupancy-and-use must be where we draw the line. Generalized wage-labour (Capitalism) requires absolute/absentee ownership by its very definition. It relies on the notion that the peasants dont possess the land they farm in, the workers dont possess the factory they work in, and the owners (who does not use or need the property he has) is capable of obtaining a surplus (M) from their labor. If we remove the ability of one to monopolize land, natural resources and other means of life everyone must have access to to be free, then we remove the ability to keep generalized wage-labor. Capitalism, even in its ideal form, is incompatible with a voluntary society because the type of property it presupposes requires aggressive violence to keep people off of property. The fact that, in the real world, Capitalism has only ever been established by force (and even today Imperialism acts as primitive accumulation in the present) is just more proof to this fact. So, the thing with your Capitalism, with out misery or napalm, is that it cannot exist in any way, shape or form; it cant exist in theory and has definitely not existed in real life.
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:12:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015