Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system?

B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?
 	B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social relationships?
 	B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical? 
 	B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?
 	B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?
	B.1.5 How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian 
		civilisation created?
	B.1.6 Can hierarchy be ended?

B.2 Why are anarchists against the state? 
 	B.2.1 What is the main function of the state? 
 	B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions? 
 	B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the state?
 	B.2.4 How does state centralisation affect freedom?
 	B.2.5 Who benefits from centralisation?
	B.2.6 Can the state be an independent power within society?

B.3 Why are anarchists against private property? 
 	B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and
		possession? 
 	B.3.2 What kinds of private property does the state protect? 
 	B.3.3 Why is private property exploitative?
	B.3.4	Can private property be justified?
	B.3.5 Is state owned property different from private property?

B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?
 	B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom? 
 	B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership? 
 	B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them! 
 	B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour? 
 	B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!

B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?

B.6 But won't decisions made by individuals with their own money be 
    the best? 

B.7 What classes exist within modern society?
 	B.7.1 But do classes actually exist?
	B.7.2 Does social mobility make up for class inequality?
 	B.7.3 Why is the existence of classes denied?
 	B.7.4 What do anarchists mean by "class consciousness"?

Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system?

This section of the FAQ presents an analysis of the basic social 
relationships of modern society and the structures which create them, 
particularly those aspects of society that anarchists want to change.

Anarchism is, essentially, a revolt against capitalism. As a political
theory it was born at the same time as capitalism and in opposition to 
it. As a social movement it grew in strength and influence as capitalism
colonised more and more parts of society. Rather than simply express 
opposition to the state, as some so-called experts assert, anarchism 
has always been opposed to other forms of authority and the oppression 
they create, in particular capitalism and its particular form of private
property. It is no coincidence that Proudhon, the first person to declare 
themselves an anarchist, did so in a book entitled _What is Property?_ 
(and gave the answer "It is theft!"). From Proudhon onwards, anarchism has
opposed both the state and capitalism (indeed, it is the one thing such
diverse thinkers as Benjamin Tucker and Peter Kropotkin both agreed on).
Needless to say, since Proudhon anarchism has extended its critique of
authority beyond these two social evils. Other forms of social hierarchy,
such as sexism, racism and homophobia, have been rejected as limitations
of freedom and equality. So this section of the FAQ summarises the key 
ideas behind anarchism's rejection of the current system we live under.

This, of course, does not mean that anarchistic ideas have not existed 
within society before the dawn of capitalism. Far from it. Thinkers whose 
ideas can be classified as anarchist go back thousands of years and are 
found many diverse cultures and places. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration 
to say that anarchism was born the moment the state and private property 
were created. However, as Kropotkin noted, while "from all times there 
have been Anarchists and Statists" in our times "Anarchy was brought 
forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest that gave rise to
Socialism in general." However, unlike other socialists, anarchists have
not stopped at the "negation of Capitalism and of society based on the
subjection of labour to capital" and went further to "declare themselves
against what constitutes the real strength of Capitalism: the State and
its principle supports -- centralisation of authority, law, always made
by a minority for its own profit, and a form of justice whose chief
aim is to protect Authority and Capitalism." So anarchism was "not only
against Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law,
Authority, and the State." [_Evolution and Environment_, p. 16 and p. 19]

In other words, anarchism as it exists today, as a social movement with
a long history of struggle and with a political theory and set of ideas, 
is the product of the transformation of society which accompanied the 
creation of the modern (nation-) state and capital and (far more 
importantly) the reaction, resistance and opposition of those subject 
to these new social relationships and institutions. As such, the 
analysis and critique presented in this section of the FAQ will 
concentrate on modern, capitalist, society. 

Anarchists realise that the power of governments and other forms of 
hierarchy depends upon the agreement of the governed. Fear is not 
the whole answer, it is far more "because they [the oppressed] 
subscribe to the same values as their governors. Rulers and ruled 
alike believe in the principle of authority, of hierarchy, of power." 
[Colin Ward, _Anarchy in Action_, p. 15] With this in mind, we 
present in this section of the FAQ our arguments to challenge this
"consensus," to present the case why we should become anarchists, 
why authoritarian social relationships and organisations are not in 
our interests.

Needless to say, this task is not easy. No ruling class could survive
unless the institutions which empower it are generally accepted by
those subject to them. This is achieved by various means -- by 
propaganda, the so-called education system, by tradition, by the
media, by the general cultural assumptions of a society. In this
way the dominant ideas in society are those of the dominant elite. 
This means that any social movement needs to combat these ideas
before trying to end them:

"People often do not even recognise the existence of systems of 
oppression and domination. They have to try to struggle to gain 
their rights within the systems in which they live before they 
even perceive that there is repression. Take a look at the women's 
movement. One of the first steps in the development of the women's 
movement was so-called 'consciousness raising efforts.' Try to 
get women to perceive that it is not the natural state of the 
world for them to be dominated and controlled. My grandmother 
couldn't join the women's movement, since she didn't feel any 
oppression, in some sense. That's just the way life was, like 
the sun rises in the morning. Until people can realise that it 
is not like the sun rising, that it can be changed, that you 
don't have to follow orders, that you don't have to be beaten, 
until people can perceive that there is something wrong with 
that, until that is overcome, you can't go on. And one of the 
ways to do that is to try to press reforms within the existing 
systems of repression, and sooner or later you find that you 
will have to change them." [Noam Chomsky, _Anarchism Interview_]

This means, as Malatesta stressed, that anarchists "first task
therefore must be to persuade people." This means that we "must
make people aware of the misfortunes they suffer and of their
chances to destroy them . . . To those who are cold and hungry
we will demonstrate how possible and easy it would be to assure
everybody their material needs. To those who are oppressed and
despised we shall show how it is possible to live happily in
a world of people who are free and equal . . . And when we will
have succeeded in arousing the sentiment of rebellion in the
minds of men [and women] against the avoidable and unjust
evils from which we suffer in society today, and in getting 
them to understand how they are caused and how it depends on
human will to rid ourselves of them" then we will be able to
unite and change them for the better. [_Errico Malatesta:
His Life and Ideas_, pp. 185-6]

So we must explain *why* we want to change the system. From this 
discussion, it will become apparent why anarchists are dissatisfied 
with the very limited amount of freedom in modern society and why 
they want to create a truly free society. In the words of Noam 
Chomsky, the anarchist critique of modern society means: 

"to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and 
domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a 
justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should 
be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes 
political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, 
parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations 
(the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement. . .), 
and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions
of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies
that control most of the domestic and international economy [i.e. 
capitalist corporations and companies], and so on. But not only these." 
[_Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures_, p. 775]

This task is made easier by the fact that the "dominating class"
has *not* "succeeded in reducing all its subjects to passive 
and unconscious instruments of its interests." This means that
where there is oppression and exploitation there is also 
resistance -- and hope. Even when those oppressed by hierarchical
social relations generally accept it, those institutions cannot
put out the spark of freedom totally. Indeed, they help produce 
the spirit of revolt by their very operation as people finally
say enough is enough and stand up for their rights. Thus 
hierarchical societies "contain organic contradictions and 
[these] are like the germs of death" from which "the possibility 
of progress" springs. [Malatesta, Op. Cit., pp. 186-7]

Anarchists, therefore, combine their critique of existing society 
with active participation in the on-going struggles which exist
in any hierarchical struggle. As we discuss in section J, we urge
people to take *direct action* to fight oppression. Such struggles
change those who take part in them, breaking the social conditioning
which keeps hierarchical society going and making people aware of
other possibilities, aware that other worlds are possible and that
we do not have to live like this. Thus struggle is the practical
school of anarchism, the means by which the preconditions of an
anarchist society are created. Anarchists seek to learn from such
struggles while, at the same time, propagating our ideas within them
and encouraging them to develop into a general struggle for social
liberation and change.

Thus the natural resistance of the oppressed to their oppression 
encourages this process of justification Chomsky (and anarchism), 
this critical evaluation of authority and domination, this 
undermining of what previously was considered "natural" or 
"common-sense" *until we started to question it.* As noted 
above, an essential part of this process is to encourage direct 
action by the oppressed against their oppressors as well as 
encouraging the anarchistic tendencies and awareness that exist (to 
a greater or lesser degree) in any hierarchical society. The task 
of anarchists is to encourage such struggles and the questioning 
their produce of society and the way it works. We aim to encourage
people to look at the root causes of the social problems they are 
fighting, to seek to change the underlying social institutions and 
relationships which produce them. We seek to create an awareness
that oppression can not only be fought, but ended, and that the 
struggle against an unjust system creates the seeds of the society 
that will replace it. In other words, we seek to encourage hope and
a positive vision of a better world.

However, this section of the FAQ is concerned directly with the 
critical or "negative" aspect of anarchism, the exposing of the evil 
inherent in all authority, be it from state, property or whatever 
and why, consequently, anarchists seek "the destruction of power, 
property, hierarchy and exploitation." [Murray Bookchin, _Post-Scarcity 
Anarchism_, p. 11] Later sections will indicate how, after analysing 
the world, anarchists plan to change it constructively, but some of 
the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in this section. 
After this broad critique of the current system, we move onto more 
specific areas. Section C explains the anarchist critique of the 
economics of capitalism. Section D discusses how the social 
relationships and institutions described in this section impact on
society as a whole. Section E discusses the causes (and some suggested
solutions) to the ecological problems we face.

B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?

First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism
challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to
assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of
the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, 
stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly
shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, 
what we tend to call hierarchy (see section H.4 for more details). 
This can be seen when Bakunin stated that "the principle of *authority*" 
was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that 
the masses, *always* incapable of governing themselves, must submit 
at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which 
in one way or another, is imposed from above." [_Marxism, Freedom 
and the State_, p. 33] 

Other forms of authority are more acceptable to anarchists, it 
depends whether the authority in question becomes a source of *power* 
over others or not. That is the key to understanding the anarchist 
position on authority -- if it is *hierarchical* authority, then 
anarchists are against it. The reason is simple: 

"No one should be entrusted with power, inasmuch as anyone invested 
with authority must . . . became an oppressor and exploiter of 
society." [Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 249]

This distinction between forms of authority is important. As Erich 
Fromm pointed out, "authority" is "a broad term with two entirely 
different meanings: it can be either 'rational' or 'irrational' 
authority. Rational authority is based on competence, and it helps 
the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational authority is based 
on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to it." [_To 
Have or To Be_, pp. 44-45] The same point was made by Bakunin over 
100 years earlier when he indicated the difference between authority 
and "natural influence." For Bakunin, individual freedom "results from 
th[e] great number of material, intellectual, and moral influences
which every individual around him [or her] and which society . . . 
continually exercise . . . To abolish this mutual influence would be
to die." Consequently, "when we reclaim the freedom of the masses, we
hardly wish to abolish the effect of any individual's or any group of
individual's natural influence upon the masses. What we wish is to 
abolish artificial, privileged, legal, and official influences." [_The
Basic Bakunin_, p. 140 and p. 141] 

It is, in other words, the difference between taking part in a decision 
and listening to alternative viewpoints and experts ("natural influence") 
before making your mind up and having a decision *made for you* by a 
separate group of individuals (who may or may not be elected) because 
that is their role in an organisation or society. In the former, the
individual exercises their judgement and freedom (i.e. is based on
rational authority). In the latter, they are subjected to the wills of 
others, to hierarchical authority (i.e. is based on irrational authority). 
This is because rational authority "not only permits but requires 
constant scrutiny and criticism . . . it is always temporary, its
acceptance depending on its performance." The source of irrational 
authority, on the other hand, "is always power over people . . . 
Power on the one side, fear on the other, are always the buttresses 
on which irrational authority is built." Thus former is based upon 
"equality" while the latter "is by its very nature based upon 
inequality." [Erich Fromm, _Man for Himself_, pp. 9-10]

This crucial point is expressed in the difference between *having*
authority and *being* an authority. Being an authority just means that a
given person is generally recognised as competent for a given task, based
on his or her individual skills and knowledge. Put differently, it is
socially acknowledged expertise. In contrast, having authority is a social
relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical
position, not on individual ability. Obviously this does not mean that
competence is not an element for obtaining a hierarchical position; it 
just means that the real or alleged initial competence is transferred 
to the title or position of the authority and so becomes independent 
of individuals, i.e. institutionalised (or what Bakunin termed "official"). 

This difference is important because the way people behave is more a product
of the institutions in which we are raised than of any inherent nature. In 
other words, social relationships *shape* the individuals involved. This
means that the various groups individuals create have traits, behaviours and 
outcomes that cannot be understood by reducing them to the individuals 
within them. That is, groups consist not only of individuals, but also 
relationships between individuals and these relationships will effect those
subject to them. For example, obviously "the exercise of power by some 
disempowers others" and so through a "combination of physical intimidation, 
economic domination and dependency, and psychological limitations, social 
institutions and practices affect the way everyone sees the world and her 
or his place in it." This, as we discuss in the next section, impacts on 
those involved in such authoritarian social relationships as "the exercise 
of power in any institutionalised form -- whether economic, political or 
sexual -- brutalises both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is 
exercised." [Martha A. Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_, p. 41] 

Authoritarian social relationships means dividing society into (the few) 
order givers and (the many) order takers, impoverishing the individuals 
involved (mentally, emotionally and physically) and society as a whole.  
Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped by authority, not 
liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom, authoritarian 
social relationships (and the obedience they require) do not and cannot 
educate a person in freedom -- only participation (self-management) in 
all areas of life can do that. "In a society based on exploitation and 
servitude," in Kropotkin's words, "human nature itself is degraded" and
it is only "as servitude disappears" shall we "regain our rights."
[_Anarchism_, p. 104]

Of course, it will be pointed out that in any collective undertaking there
is a need for co-operation and co-ordination and this need to "subordinate"
the individual to group activities is a form of authority. Therefore, it
is claimed, a democratically managed group is just as "authoritarian" as
one based on hierarchical authority. Anarchists are not impressed by such
arguments. Yes, we reply, of course in any group undertaking there is a 
need make and stick by agreements but anarchists argue that to use the 
word "authority" to describe two fundamentally different ways of making 
decisions is playing with words. It obscures the fundamental difference 
between free association and hierarchical imposition and confuses 
co-operation with command (as we note in section H.4, Marxists are 
particularly fond of this fallacy). Simply put, there are two different 
ways of co-ordinating individual activity within groups -- either by 
authoritarian means or by libertarian means. Proudhon, in relation to 
workplaces, makes the difference clear:

"either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the 
proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . [and] 
have a voice in the council, in a word he will become an associate.

"In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his
dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing 
organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, 
he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the 
subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is 
necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without 
that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and 
tthere would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which 
is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [_General Idea of the 
Revolution_, pp. 215-216]

In other words, associations can be based upon a form of *rational* 
authority, based upon *natural influence* and so reflect freedom, the 
ability of individuals to think, act and feel and manage their own time 
and activity. Otherwise, we include elements of slavery into our 
relationships with others, elements that poison the whole and shape 
us in negative ways (see section B.1.1). Only the reorganisation of 
society in a libertarian way (and, we may add, the mental transformation 
such a change requires and would create) will allow the individual to 
"achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst continuing to develop" 
and banish "that spirit of submission that has been artificially thrust 
upon him [or her]." [Nestor Makhno, _The Struggle Against the State and 
Other Essays_, p. 62]

So, anarchists "ask nothing better than to see [others] . . . exercise over
us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted, and never imposed
. . . We accept all natural authorities and all influences of fact, but 
none of right." [Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 255] 
Anarchist support for free association within directly democratic groups 
is based upon such organisational forms increasing influence and reducing 
irrational authority in our lives. Members of such organisations can 
create and present their own ideas and suggestions, critically evaluate 
the proposals and suggestions from their fellows, accept those that they 
agree with or become convinced by and have the option of leaving the 
association if they are unhappy with its direction. Hence the influence 
of individuals and their free interaction determine the nature of the 
decisions reached, and no one has the right to impose their ideas on 
another. As Bakunin argued, in such organisations "no function remains 
fixed and it will not remain permanently and irrevocably attached to 
one person. Hierarchical order and promotion do not exist . . . In 
such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is 
diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the 
liberty of everyone." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 415]

Therefore, anarchists are opposed to *irrational* (e.g., illegitimate) 
authority, in other words, hierarchy -- hierarchy being the 
institutionalisation of authority within a society. Hierarchical social 
institutions include the state (see section B.2), private property and
the class systems it produces (see section B.3) and, therefore, capitalism 
(see section B.4). Due to their hierarchical nature, anarchists oppose 
these with passion. "Every institution, social or civil," argued 
Voltairine de Cleyre, "that stands between man [or woman] and his [or 
her] right; every tie that renders one a master, another a serf; every 
law, every statue, every be-it-enacted that represents tyranny" 
anarchists seek to destroy. However, hierarchy exists beyond these 
institutions. For example, hierarchical social relationships include 
sexism, racism and homophobia (see section B.1.4), and anarchists 
oppose, and fight, them all. Thus, as well as fighting capitalism
as being hierarchical (for workers "slave in a factory," albeit 
"the slavery ends with the working hours") de Cleyre also opposed 
patriarchal social relationships which produce a "home that 
rests on slavery" and a "marriage that represents the sale and 
transfer of the individuality of one of its parties to the other!"
[_The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader_, p. 72, p.  17 and p. 72]

Needless to say, while we discuss different forms of hierarchy in 
different sections this does not imply that anarchists think they, 
and their negative effects, are somehow independent or can be easily 
compartmentalised. For example, the modern state and capitalism are
intimately interrelated and cannot be considered as independent of
each other. Similarly, social hierarchies like sexism and racism 
are used by other hierarchies to maintain themselves (for example,
bosses will use racism to divide and so rule their workers). From 
this it follows that abolishing one or some of these hierarchies,
while desirable, would not be sufficient. Abolishing capitalism while
maintaining the state would not lead to a free society (and vice versa) 
-- if it were possible. As Murray Bookchin notes: 

"there can be a decidedly classless, even a non-exploitative society 
in the *economic* sense that still preserves hierarchical rule and 
domination in the *social* sense -- whether they take the form of the 
patriarchal family, domination by age and ethnic groups, bureaucratic 
institutions, ideological manipulation or a pyramidal division of labour 
. . . classless or not, society would be riddles by domination and, with
domination, a general condition of command and obedience, of unfreedom
and humiliation, and perhaps most decisively, an abortion of each
individual's potentiality for consciousness, reason, selfhood, creativity,
and the right to assert full control over her or his daily live."
[_Toward an Ecological Society_, pp. 14-5]

This clearly implies that anarchists "challenge not only class formations 
but hierarchies, not only material exploitation but domination in every
form." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 15] Hence the anarchist stress on opposing
hierarchy rather than just, say, the state (as some falsely assert) or
simply economic class and exploitation (as, say, many Marxists do). As 
noted earlier (in section A.2.8), anarchists consider all hierarchies 
to be not only harmful but unnecessary, and think that there are 
alternative, more egalitarian ways to organise social life. In fact, 
we argue that hierarchical authority creates the conditions it is 
presumably designed to combat, and thus tends to be self-perpetuating. 
Thus hierarchical organisations erode the ability of those at the
bottom to manage their own affairs directly so requiring hierarchy
and some people in positions to give orders and the rest to follow
them. Rather than prevent disorder, governments are among its primary
causes while its bureaucracies ostensibly set up to fight poverty wind 
up perpetuating it, because without poverty, the high-salaried top 
administrators would be out of work. The same applies to agencies
intended to eliminate drug abuse, fight crime, etc. In other words, 
the power and privileges deriving from top hierarchical positions 
constitute a strong incentive for those who hold them *not* to solve 
the problems they are supposed to solve. (For further discussion see 
Marilyn French, _Beyond Power: On Women, Men, and Morals_) 

B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social relationships?

Hierarchical authority is inextricably connected with the marginalisation
and disempowerment of those without authority. This has negative effects 
on those over whom authority is exercised, since "[t]hose who have these 
symbols of authority and those who benefit from them must dull their
subject people's realistic, i.e. critical, thinking and make them believe
the fiction [that irrational authority is rational and necessary], . . .
[so] the mind is lulled into submission by clichs . . . [and] people are
made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust
their eyes and judgement." [Erich Fromm, _To Have or To Be?_, p. 47] 

Or, in the words of Bakunin, "the principle of authority, applied to men 
who have surpassed or attained their majority, becomes a monstrosity, a 
source of slavery and intellectual and moral depravity." [_God and the 
State_, p. 41]

This is echoed by the syndicalist miners who wrote the classic _The Miner's 
Next Step_ when they indicate the nature of authoritarian organisations and 
their effect on those involved. Leadership (i.e. hierarchical authority) 
"implies power held by the leader. Without power the leader is inept. The 
possession of power inevitably leads to corruption. . . in spite of. . . good 
intentions . . . [Leadership means] power of initiative, this sense of 
responsibility, the self-respect which comes from expressed manhood [sic!], 
is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their 
initiative, their responsibility, their self-respect becomes his. . . 
[and the] order and system he maintains is based upon the suppression of the 
men, from being independent thinkers into being 'the men'. . . In a word, he 
is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy." Indeed, for the 
"leader," such marginalisation can be beneficial, for a leader "sees no need 
for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud 
his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding 
criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion." 
[_The Miners Next Step_, pp. 16-17 and p. 15]

Anarchists argue that hierarchical social relationships will have a negative 
effect on those subject to them, who can no longer exercise their critical, 
creative and mental abilities *freely*. As Colin Ward argues, people "do 
go from womb to tomb without realising their human potential, precisely
because the power to initiate, to participate in innovating, choosing, 
judging, and deciding is reserved for the top men" (and it usually *is* 
men!). [_Anarchy in Action_, p, 42] Anarchism is based on the insight 
that there is an interrelationship between the authority structures of 
institutions and the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals. 
Following orders all day hardly builds an independent, empowered, creative 
personality ("authority and servility walk ever hand in hand." [Peter 
Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 81]). As Emma Goldman made clear, if a 
person's "inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a 
master" (such as a boss, as most people have to sell their labour under 
capitalism) then little wonder such an authoritarian relationship "condemns 
millions of people to be mere nonentities." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 50]

As the human brain is a bodily organ, it needs to be used regularly in
order to be at its fittest. Authority concentrates decision-making in the
hands of those at the top, meaning that most people are turned into
executants, following the orders of others. If muscle is not used, it
turns to fat; if the brain is not used, creativity, critical thought and
mental abilities become blunted and side-tracked onto marginal issues,
like sports and fashion. This can only have a negative impact: 

"Hierarchical institutions foster alienated and exploitative
relationships among those who participate in them, disempowering people
and distancing them from their own reality. Hierarchies make some people
dependent on others, blame the dependent for their dependency, and then
use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority
. . . Those in positions of relative dominance tend to define the very
characteristics of those subordinate to them . . . Anarchists argue that
to be always in a position of being acted upon and never to be allowed to
act is to be doomed to a state of dependence and resignation. Those who
are constantly ordered about and prevented from thinking for themselves
soon come to doubt their own capacities . . . [and have] difficulty acting
on [their] sense of self in opposition to societal norms, standards and
expectations." [Martha Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_, pp. 40-1]

And so, in the words of Colin Ward, the "system makes its morons, then 
despises them for their ineptitude, and rewards its 'gifted few' for 
their rarity." [Op. Cit., p. 43] 

In a nutshell, "[h]ierarchies, classes, and states warp the creative
powers of humanity." However, that is not all. Hierarchy, anarchists 
argue, also twists our relationships with the environment. Indeed, 
"all our notions of dominating nature stem from the very real domination
of human by human . . . And it is not until we eliminate domination in 
all its forms . . . that we will really create a rational, ecological
society." For "the conflicts within a divided humanity, structured 
around domination, inevitably leads to conflicts with nature. The 
ecological crisis with its embattled division between humanity and
nature stems, above all, from divisions between human and human."
While the "rise of capitalism, with a law of life based on competition,
capital accumulation, and limitless growth, brought these problems --
ecological and social -- to an acute point," anarchists "emphasise 
that major ecological problems have their roots in social problems
-- problems that go back to the very beginnings of patricentric 
culture itself." [Murray Bookchin, _Remaking Society_, p. 72, p. 44, 
p. 72 and pp. 154-5] 

Thus, anarchists argue, hierarchy impacts not only on us but also our
surroundings. The environmental crisis we face is a result of the 
hierarchical power structures at the heart of our society, structures 
which damage the planet's ecology at least as much as they damage humans. 
The problems within society, the economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender 
conflicts, among many others, lie at the core of the most serious 
ecological dislocations we face. The way human beings deal with each 
other as social beings is crucial to addressing the ecological crisis.
Ultimately, ecological destruction is rooted in the organisation of our 
society for a degraded humanity can only yield a degraded nature (as 
capitalism and our hierarchical history have sadly shown).

This is unsurprising as we, as a species, shape our environment and,
consequently, whatever shapes us will impact how we do so. This means
that the individuals produced by the hierarchy (and the authoritarian 
mentality it produces) will shape the planet in specific, harmful, 
ways. This is to be expected as humans act upon their environment 
deliberately, creating what is most suitable for their mode of existence.
If that mode of living is riddled with hierarchies, classes, states and 
the oppression, exploitation and domination they create then our relations
with the natural world will hardly be any better. In other words, social 
hierarchy and class legitimises our domination of the environment, 
planting the seeds for the believe that nature exists, like other 
people, to be dominated and used as required. 

Which brings us to another key reason why anarchists reject hierarchy.
In addition to these negative psychological effects from the denial of 
liberty, authoritarian social relationships also produce social inequality. 
This is because an individual subject to the authority of another has to 
obey the orders of those above them in the social hierarchy. In capitalism 
this means that workers have to follow the orders of their boss (see next 
section), orders that are designed to make the boss richer. And richer
they have become, with the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of big firms 
earning 212 times what the average US worker did in 1995 (up from a mere
44 times 30 years earlier). Indeed, from 1994 to 1995 alone, CEO 
compensation in the USA rose 16 percent, compared to 2.8 percent for 
workers, which did not even keep pace with inflation, and whose 
stagnating wages cannot be blamed on corporate profits, which rose a 
healthy 14.8 percent for that year. 

Needless to say, inequality in terms of power will translate itself 
into inequality in terms of wealth (and vice versa). The effects of 
such social inequality are wide-reaching. For example, health is 
affected significantly by inequality. Poor people are more likely 
to be sick and die at an earlier age, compared to rich people. 
Simply put, "the lower the class, the worse the health. Going beyond
such static measures, even interruptions in income of the sort caused
by unemployment have adverse health effects." Indeed, the sustained 
economic hardship associated with a low place in the social hierarchy
leads to poorer physical, psychological and cognitive functioning
("with consequences that last a decade or more"). "Low incomes, 
unpleasant occupations and sustained discrimination," notes Doug
Henwood, "may result in apparently physical symptoms that confuse
even sophisticated biomedical scientists . . . Higher incomes are
also associated with lower frequency of psychiatric disorders, as
are higher levels of asset ownership." [_After the New Economy_, 
pp. 81-2]

Moreover, the *degree* of inequality is important (i.e. the size of the 
gap between rich and poor). According to an editorial in the _British 
Medical Journal_ "what matters in determining mortality and health in a 
society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly 
wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better 
the health of that society." [vol. 312, April 20, 1996, p. 985]

Research in the USA found overwhelming evidence of this. George Kaplan and 
his colleagues measured inequality in the 50 US states and compared it to 
the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern emerged: 
the more unequal the distribution of income, the greater the death rate.
In other words, it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average 
income in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state.
["Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of 
mortality and potential pathways," _British Medical Journal_, vol. 312, 
April 20, 1996, pp. 999-1003]

This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social
conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the
distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher 
rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income 
assistance and food stamps, a greater percentage of people without 
medical insurance, greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight, 
higher murder rates, higher rates of violent crime, higher costs per-person
for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
Moreover states with greater inequality of income distribution also 
spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the
schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading
skills, worse mathematics skills, and lower rates of completion of high 
school.

As the gap grows between rich and poor (indicating an increase in social 
hierarchy within and outwith of workplaces) the health of a people 
deteriorates and the social fabric unravels. The psychological hardship of 
being low down on the social ladder has detrimental effects on people, 
beyond whatever effects are produced by the substandard housing, nutrition, 
air quality, recreational opportunities, and medical care enjoyed by the 
poor (see George Davey Smith, "Income inequality and mortality: why are 
they related?" _British Medical Journal_, Vol. 312, April 20, 1996, 
pp. 987-988).

So wealth does not determine health. What does is the gap between 
the rich and the poor. The larger the gap, the sicker the society. 
Countries with a greater degree of socioeconomic inequality show 
greater inequality in health status; also, that middle-income groups 
in relatively unequal societies have worse health than comparable, or 
even poorer, groups in more equal societies. Unsurprisingly, this is
also reflected over time. The widening income differentials in both 
the USA and the UK since 1980 have coincided with a slowing down of 
improvements in life-expectancy, for example.

Inequality, in short, is bad for our health: the health of a population 
depends not just on the size of the economic pie, but on how the pie is 
shared.

This is not all. As well as inequalities in wealth, inequalities in 
freedom also play a large role in overall human well-being. According 
to Michael Marmot's _The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects 
Our Health and Longevity_, as you move up any kind of hierarchy your 
health status improves. Autonomy and position in a hierarchy are 
related (i.e. the higher you are in a hierarchy, the more autonomy 
you have). Thus the implication of this empirical work is that 
autonomy is a source of good health, that the more control you have 
over your work environment and your life in general, the less likely 
you are to suffer the classic stress-related illnesses, such as heart 
disease. As public-Health scholars Jeffrey Johnson and Ellen
Hall have noted, the "potential to control one's own environment is
differentially distributed along class lines." [quoted by Robert
Kuttner, _Everything for Sale_, p. 153]

As would be expected from the very nature of hierarchy, to "be in a
life situation where one experiences relentless demands by others,
over which one has relatively little control, is to be at risk of
poor health, physically as well as mentally." Looking at heart
disease, the people with greatest risk "tended to be in occupations
with high demands, low control, and low social support. People in
demanding positions but with great autonomy were at lower risk."
Under capitalism, "a relatively small elite demands and gets 
empowerment, self-actualisation, autonomy, and other work
satisfaction that partially compensate for long hours" while 
"epidemiological data confirm that lower-paid, lower-status workers
are more likely to experience the most clinically damaging forms 
of stress, in part because they have less control over their work." 
[Kuttner, Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]

In other words, the inequality of autonomy and social participation 
produced by hierarchy is itself a cause of poor health. There would 
be positive feedback on the total amount of health -- and thus of 
social welfare -- if social inequality was reduced, not only in terms 
of wealth but also, crucially, in power. This is strong evidence in 
support of anarchist visions of egalitarianism. Some social structures 
give more people more autonomy than others and acting to promote social 
justice along these lines is a key step toward improving our health. 
This means that promoting libertarian, i.e. self-managed, social 
organisations would increase not only liberty but also people's health 
and well-being, both physical and mental. Which is, as we argued above, 
to be expected as hierarchy, by its very nature, impacts negatively on 
those subject to it.

This dovetails into anarchist support for workers' control. Industrial 
psychologists have found that satisfaction in work depends on the "span 
of autonomy" works have. Unsurprisingly, those workers who are continually 
making decisions for themselves are happier and live longer. It is the 
power to control all aspects of your life -- work particularly -- that 
wealth and status tend to confer that is the key determinant of health. 
Men who have low job control face a 50% higher risk of new illness: heart 
attacks, stroke, diabetes or merely ordinary infections. Women are at 
slightly lower risk but low job control was still a factor in whether 
they fell ill or not. 

So it is the fact that the boss is a boss that makes the employment 
relationship so troublesome for health issues (and genuine libertarians). 
The more bossy the boss, the worse, as a rule is the job. So part of 
autonomy is not being bossed around, but that is only part of the story. 
And, of course, hierarchy (inequality of power) and exploitation (the
source of material inequality) are related. As we indicate in the next 
section, capitalism is based on wage labour. The worker sell their liberty 
to the boss for a given period of time, i.e. they loose their autonomy. 
This allows the possibility of exploitation, as the worker can produce 
more wealth than they receive back in wages. As the boss pockets the 
difference, lack of autonomy produces increases in social inequality 
which, in turn, impacts negatively on your well-being. 

Then there is the waste associated with hierarchy. While the proponents 
of authority like to stress its "efficiency," the reality is different. 
As Colin Ward points out, being in authority "derives from your rank in 
some chain of command . . . But knowledge and wisdom are not distributed 
in order of rank, and they are no one person's monopoly in any undertaking. 
The fantastic inefficiency of any hierarchical organisation -- any factory, 
office, university, warehouse or hospital -- is the outcome of two almost 
invariable characteristics. One is that the knowledge and wisdom of the 
people at the bottom of the pyramid finds no place in the decision-making 
leadership hierarchy of the institution. Frequently it is devoted to 
making the institution work in spite of the formal leadership structure, 
or alternatively to sabotaging the ostensible function of the institution, 
because it is none of their choosing. The other is that they would rather 
not be there anyway: they are there through economic necessity rather than 
through identification with a common task which throws up its own shifting 
and functional leadership." [Op. Cit., p. 41] 

Hierarchy, in other words, blocks the flow of information and knowledge.
Rulers, as Malatesta argued, "can only make use of the forces that 
exist in society -- except for those great forces" their action "paralyses
and destroys, and those rebel forces, and all that is wasted through
conflicts; inevitable tremendous losses in such an artificial system."
And so as well as individuals being prevented from developing to their 
fullest, wasting their unfulfilled potentialities, hierarchy also harms 
society as a whole by reducing efficiency and creativity. This is because
input into decisions are limited "only to those individuals who form 
the government [of a hierarchical organisation] or who by reason of
their position can influence the[ir] policy." Obviously this means "that
far from resulting in an increase in the productive, organising and
protective forces in society," hierarchy "greatly reduce[s] them, 
limiting initiative to a few, and giving them the right to do everything
without, of course, being able to provide them with the gift of being
all-knowing." [_Anarchy_, p. 38 and p. 39]

Large scale hierarchical organisations, like the state, are also marked 
by bureaucracy. This becomes a necessity in order to gather the necessary 
information it needs to make decisions (and, obviously, to control those 
under it). However, soon this bureaucracy becomes the real source of 
power due to its permanence and control of information and resources.
Thus hierarchy cannot "survive without creating around itself a new
privileged class" as well as being a "privileged class and cut off from 
the people" itself. [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36] This means
that those at the top of an institution rarely know the facts on the 
ground, making decisions in relative ignorance of their impact or the 
actual needs of the situation or people involved. As economist Joseph 
Stiglitz concluded from his own experiences in the World Bank, "immense 
time and effort are required to effect change even from the inside, in 
an international bureaucracy. Such organisations are opaque rather than
transparent, and not only does far too little information radiate from
inside to the outside world, perhaps even less information from outside
is able to penetrate the organisation. The opaqueness also means that
it is hard for information from the bottom of the organisation to
percolate to the top." [_Globalisation and its Discontents_, p. 33]
The same can be said of any hierarchical organisation, whether a 
nation state or capitalist business.

Moreover, as Ward and Malatesta indicate, hierarchy provokes a struggle 
between those at the bottom and at the top. This struggle is also a source 
of waste as it diverts resources and energy from more fruitful activity 
into fighting it. Ironically, as we discuss in section H.4.4, one weapon
forged in that struggle is the "work to rule," namely workers bringing
their workplace to a grinding halt by following the dictates of the boss 
to the letter. This is clear evidence that a workplace only operates 
because workers exercise their autonomy during working hours, an autonomy 
which authoritarian structures stifle and waste. A participatory workplace, 
therefore, would be more efficient and less wasteful than the hierarchical 
one associated with capitalism. As we discuss in section J.5.12, hierarchy 
and the struggle it creates always acts as a barrier stopping the increased 
efficiency associated with workers' participation undermining the autocratic 
workplace of capitalism. 

All this is not to suggest that those at the bottom of hierarchies are
victims nor that those at the top of hierarchies only gain benefits -- far 
from it. As Ward and Malatesta indicated, hierarchy by its very nature 
creates resistance to it from those subjected to it and, in the process, 
the potential for ending it (see section B.1.6 for more discussion). 
Conversely, at the summit of the pyramid, we also see the evils of 
hierarchy. 

If we look at those at the top of the system, yes, indeed they often 
do *very* well in terms of material goods and access to education, leisure,
health and so on but they lose their humanity and individuality. As 
Bakunin pointed out, "power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as 
much as those who are compelled to submit to them." [_The Political Philosophy 
of Bakunin_, p. 249] Power operates destructively, even on those who have
it, reducing their individuality as it "renders them stupid and brutal, 
even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who 
is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last 
becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling." [Rudolf Rocker, 
_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, pp. 17-8] 

When it boils down to it, hierarchy is self-defeating, for if "wealth is other 
people," then by treating others as less than yourself, restricting their 
growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals 
have, so impoverishing your own life and *restricting your own growth.*
Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form
of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and
leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places 
the individual *within* society, one that recognises that relationships with 
others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class based
society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."

Looking at the environment, the self-defeating nature of hierarchy also becomes
clear. The destiny of human life goes hand-in-hand with the destiny of the 
non-human world. While being rich and powerful may mitigate the impact of
the ecological destruction produced by hierarchies and capitalism, it will
not stop them and will, eventually, impact on the elite as well as the many.

Little wonder, then, that "anarchism . . . works to destroy authority 
in all its aspects . . . [and] refuses all hierarchical organisation." 
[Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 137]

B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical? 

Yes. Under capitalism workers do not exchange the products of their labour
they exchange the labour itself for money. They sell themselves for a
given period of time, and in return for wages, promise to obey their
paymasters. Those who pay and give the orders -- owners and managers --
are at the top of the hierarchy, those who obey at the bottom. This
means that capitalism, by its very nature, is hierarchical. 

As Carole Pateman argues: 

"Capacities or labour power cannot be used without the worker using 
his will, his understanding and experience, to put them into effect. 
The use of labour power requires the presence of its 'owner,' 
and it remains mere potential until he acts in the manner necessary 
to put it into use, or agrees or is compelled so to act; that 
is, the worker must labour. To contract for the use of labour power 
is a waste of resources unless it can be used in the way in which the
new owner requires. The fiction 'labour power' cannot be used; what is
required is that the worker labours as demanded. The employment contract 
must, therefore, create a relationship of command and obedience between
employer and worker . . . In short, the contract in which the worker 
allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot 
be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his
body and himself. To obtain the right to use another is to be a (civil)
master." [_The Sexual Contract_, pp. 150-1]
 
You need only compare this to Proudhon's comments quoted in section B.1 
to see that anarchists have long recognised that capitalism is, by its 
very nature, hierarchical. The worker is subjected to the authority of 
the boss during working hours (sometimes outside work too). As Noam 
Chomsky summarises, "a corporation, factory of business is the economic 
equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down." 
[_Letters from Lexington_, p. 127] The worker's choices are extremely
limited, for most people it amount to renting themselves out to a
series of different masters (for a lucky few, the option of being a
master is available). And master is the right word for, as David 
Ellerman reminds us, "[s]ociety seems to have 'covered up' in the 
popular consciousness the fact that the traditional name [for employer 
and employee] is '*master and servant.*" [_Property and Contract in 
Economics_, p. 103]

This hierarchical control of wage labour has the effect of alienating
workers from their own work, and so from themselves. Workers no longer
govern themselves during work hours and so are no longer free. And so, 
due to capitalism, there is "an oppression in the land," a "form of 
slavery" rooted in current "property institutions" which produces "a 
social war, inevitable so long as present legal-social conditions 
endure." [Voltairine de Cleyre, Op. Cit., pp. 54-5]

Some defenders of capitalism are aware of the contradiction between 
the rhetoric of the system and its reality for those subject to it.
Most utilise the argument that workers consent to this form of 
hierarchy. Ignoring the economic conditions which force people to
sell their liberty on the labour market (see section B.4.3), the 
issue instantly arises of whether consent is enough in itself to
justify the alienation/selling of a person's liberty. For example, 
there have been arguments for slavery and monarchy (i.e.
dictatorship) rooted in consent. Do we really want to say that 
the only thing wrong with fascism or slavery is that people do not 
consent to it? Sadly, some right-wing "libertarians" come to that 
conclusion (see section B.4).

Some try to redefine the reality of the command-and-obey of wage
labour. "To speak of managing, directing, or assigning workers to 
various tasks is a deceptive way of noting that the employer 
continually is involved in re-negotiation of contracts on terms 
that must be acceptable to both parties," argue two right-wing
economists. [Arman Alchian and Harold Demsetz, quoted by Ellerman,
Op. Cit., p. 170] So the employer-employee (or, to use the old, 
more correct, terminology, master-servant) contract is thus a 
series of unspoken contracts. 

However, if an oral contract is not worth the paper it is 
written on, how valuable is an unspoken one? And what does 
this "re-negotiation of contracts" amount to? The employee 
decides whether to obey the command or leave and the boss 
decides whether the employee is obedient and productive enough 
to remain in under his or her control. Hardly a relationship
based on freedom between equal partners! As such, this capitalist
defence of wage labour "is a deceptive way of noting" that the 
employee is paid to obey. The contract between them is simply
that of obedience on one side and power on the other. That both
sides may break the contract does not alter this fact. Thus the
capitalist workplace "is not democratic in spite of the 'consent 
of the governed' to the employment contract . . . In the 
employment contract, the workers alienate and transfer their 
legal rights to the employer to govern their activities 'within 
the scope of the employment' to the employer." [David Ellerman, 
_The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm_, p. 50]

Ultimately, there is *one* right that cannot be ceded or abandoned, 
namely the right to personality. If a person gave up their personality 
they would cease to be a person yet this is what the employment contract 
imposes. To maintain and develop their personality is a basic right 
of humanity and it cannot be transferred to another, permanently or 
temporarily. To argue otherwise would be to admit that under certain 
circumstances and for certain periods of time a person is not a 
person but rather a thing to be used by others. Yet this is precisely
what capitalism does due to its hierarchical nature.

This is not all. Capitalism, by treating labour as analogous to all 
other commodities denies the key distinction between labour and other 
"resources" -- that is to say its inseparability from its bearer -- 
labour, unlike other "property," is endowed with will and agency. Thus 
when one speaks of selling labour there is a necessary subjugation of 
will (hierarchy). As Karl Polanyi writes:

"Labour is only another name for human activity which goes with
life itself, which is in turn not produced for sale but for entirely
different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of
life itself, be stored or mobilised . . . To allow the market mechanism
to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural 
environment . . . would result in the demolition of society. For the
alleged commodity 'labour power' cannot be shoved about, used 
indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the
human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar 
commodity. In disposing of a man's labour power the system would,
incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral
entity 'man' attached to that tag." [_The Great Transformation_, 
pp. 72-3]

In other words, labour is much more than the commodity to which
capitalism tries to reduce it. Creative, self-managed work is a source 
of pride and joy and part of what it means to be fully human. Wrenching 
control of work from the hands of the worker profoundly harms his or her 
mental and physical health. Indeed, Proudhon went so far as to argue that 
capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of the wage-workers" 
and were an "outrage upon human dignity and personality." [Op. Cit., 
p. 219] This is because wage labour turns productive activity and the
person who does it into a commodity. People "are not human *beings*
so much as human *resources.* To the morally blind corporation, they
are tool to generate as much profit as possible. And 'the tool can be
treated just like a piece of metal -- you use it if you want, you 
throw it away if you don't want it,' says Noam Chomsky. 'If you can
get human beings to become tool like that, it's more efficient by some
measure of efficiency . . . a measure which is based on dehumanisation.
You have to dehumanise it. That's part of the system.'" [Joel Bakan,
_The Corporation_, p. 69]

Separating labour from other activities of life and subjecting it to the 
laws of the market means to annihilate its natural, organic form of 
existence -- a form that evolved with the human race through tens of 
thousands of years of co-operative economic activity based on sharing 
and mutual aid -- and replacing it with an atomistic and individualistic 
one based on contract and competition. Unsurprisingly, this relationship
is a very recent development and, moreover, the product of substantial 
state action and coercion (see section F.8 for some discussion of this).
Simply put, "the early labourer . . . abhorred the factory, where he
[or she] felt degraded and tortured." While the state ensured a steady
pool of landless workers by enforcing private property rights, the 
early manufacturers also utilised the state to ensure low wages, 
primarily for social reasons -- only an overworked and downtrodden 
labourer with no other options would agree to do whatever their 
master required of them. "Legal compulsion and parish serfdom as in 
England," noted Polanyi, "the rigors of an absolutist labour police 
as on the Continent, indented labour as in the early Americas were 
the prerequisites of the 'willing worker.'" [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]

Ignoring its origins in state action, the social relationship of wage 
labour is then claimed by capitalists to be a source of "freedom," 
whereas in fact it is a form of (in)voluntary servitude (see sections 
B.4 and A.2.14 for more discussion). Therefore a libertarian who did 
not support economic liberty (i.e. self-government in industry, 
libertarian socialism) would be no libertarian at all, and no 
believer in liberty. Capitalism is based upon hierarchy and the 
denial of liberty. To present it otherwise denies the nature of 
wage labour. However, supporters of capitalism try to but -- as Karl 
Polanyi points out - the idea that wage labour is based upon some 
kind of "natural" liberty is false: 
 
"To represent this principle [wage labour] as one of non-interference 
[with freedom], as economic liberals were wont to do, was merely the 
expression of an ingrained prejudice in favour of a definite kind of 
interference, namely, such as would destroy non-contractual relations 
between individuals and prevent their spontaneous re-formation." [Op. 
Cit., p.163]

As noted above, capitalism itself was created by state violence and
the destruction of traditional ways of life and social interaction was
part of that task. From the start, bosses spent considerable time and
energy combating attempts of working people to join together to resist
the hierarchy they were subjected to and reassert human values. Such
forms of free association between equals (such as trade unions) were
combated, just as attempts to regulate the worse excesses of the 
system by democratic governments. Indeed, capitalists prefer centralised, 
elitist and/or authoritarian regimes precisely because they are sure to 
be outside of popular control (see section B.2.5). They are the only way 
that contractual relations based on market power could be enforced on an 
unwilling population. Capitalism was born under such states and as well 
as backing fascist movements, they made high profits in Nazi Germany and 
Fascist Italy. Today many corporations "regularly do business with 
totalitarian and authoritarian regimes -- again, because it is profitable 
to do so." Indeed, there is a "trend by US corporations to invest in" 
such countries. [Joel Bakan, Op. Cit., p. 89 and p. 185] Perhaps 
unsurprisingly, as such regimes are best able to enforce the necessary 
conditions to commodify labour fully.

B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?

Anarchists argue that capitalism can only have a negative 
impact on ethical behaviour. This flows from its hierarchical 
nature. We think that hierarchy must, by its very nature, 
always impact negatively on morality. 

As we argued in section A.2.19, ethics is dependent on 
both individual liberty and equality between individuals. 
Hierarchy violates both and so the "great sources of moral 
depravity" are "capitalism, religion, justice, government." 
In "the domain of economy, coercion has lead us to industrial 
servitude; in the domain of politics to the State . . . 
[where] the nation . . . becomes nothing but a mass of obedient 
*subjects* to a central authority." This has "contributed and 
powerfully aided to create all the present economic, political, 
and social evils" and "has given proof of its absolute impotence 
to raise the moral level of societies; it has not even been able 
to maintain it at the level it had already reached." This is
unsurprising, as society developed "authoritarian prejudices" 
and "men become more and more divided into governors and governed, 
exploiters and exploited, the moral level fell . . . and the spirit 
of the age declined." By violating equality, by rejecting social
co-operation between equals in favour of top-down, authoritarian,
social relationships which turn some into the tools of others, 
capitalism, like the state, could not help but erode ethical 
standards as the "moral level" of society is "debased by the 
practice of authority." [Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, pp. 137-8, p. 106 
and p. 139]

However, as we as promoting general unethical behaviour, capitalism 
produces a specific perverted hierarchy of values -- one that 
places humanity below property. As Erich Fromm argues: 

"The use [i.e. exploitation] of man by man is expressive of the 
*system of values* underlying the capitalistic system. *Capital, 
the dead past, employs labour -- the living vitality and power of 
the present.* In the capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands 
higher than labour, amassed things higher than the manifestations of 
life. Capital employs labour, and not labour capital. The person who 
owns capital commands the person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, 
vitality and creative productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. 
The conflict between capital and labour is much more than the conflict 
between two classes, more than their fight for a greater share of the 
social product. It is the conflict between two principles of value: 
*that between the world of things, and their amassment, and the world 
of life and its productivity*." [_The Sane Society_, pp. 94-95]

Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the
commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a *thing*. Instead of
being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral
and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts. This replacement of 
human relationships by economic ones soon results in the replacement of 
human values by economic ones, giving us an "ethics" of the account book, 
in which people are valued by how much they earn. It also leads, as 
Murray Bookchin argues, to a debasement of human values: 

"So deeply rooted is the market economy in our minds that its grubby
language has replaced our most hallowed moral and spiritual expressions.
We now 'invest' in our children, marriages, and personal relationships, a
term that is equated with words like 'love' and 'care.' We live in a world
of 'trade-offs' and we ask for the 'bottom line' of any emotional
'transaction.' We use the terminology of contracts rather than that of
loyalties and spiritual affinities." [_The Modern Crisis_, p. 79]

With human values replaced by the ethics of calculation, and with only the
laws of market and state "binding" people together, social breakdown is
inevitable. Little wonder modern capitalism has seen a massive increase 
in crime and dehumanisation under the freer markets established by 
"conservative" governments, such as those of Thatcher and Reagan and 
their transnational corporate masters. We now live in a society where 
people live in self-constructed fortresses, "free" behind their walls 
and defences (both emotional and physical). 

Of course, some people *like* the "ethics" of mathematics. But this is 
mostly because -- like all gods -- it gives the worshipper an easy rule 
book to follow. "Five is greater than four, therefore five is better" 
is pretty simple to understand. John Steinbeck noticed this when he wrote: 

"Some of them [the owners] hated the mathematics that drove them [to kick 
the farmers off their land], and some were afraid, and some worshipped 
the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling." 
[_The Grapes of Wrath_, p. 34]

The debasement of the individual in the workplace, where so much time is
spent, necessarily affects a person's self-image, which in turn carries 
over into the way he or she acts in other areas of life. If one is 
regarded as a commodity at work, one comes to regard oneself and others 
in that way also. Thus all social relationships -- and so, ultimately, 
*all* individuals -- are commodified. In capitalism, literally nothing 
is sacred -- "everything has its price" -- be it dignity, self-worth, 
pride, honour -- all become commodities up for grabs. Such debasement 
produces a number of social pathologies. "Consumerism" is one example 
which can be traced directly to the commodification of the individual 
under capitalism. To quote Fromm again, "*Things* have no self, and 
men who have become things [i.e. commodities on the labour market] can
have no self." [Op. Cit., p. 143] 

However, people still feel the *need* for selfhood, and so try to fill the
emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life will be
complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume. Unfortunately, 
since commodities are yet more things, they provide no substitute for 
selfhood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This process is, of course,
encouraged by the advertising industry, which tries to convince us to buy
what we don't need because it will make us popular/sexy/happy/free/etc.
(delete as appropriate!). But consuming cannot really satisfy the needs
that the commodities are bought to satisfy. Those needs can only be
satisfied by social interaction based on truly human values and by
creative, self-directed work.

This does not mean, of course, that anarchists are against higher living
standards or material goods. To the contrary, they recognise that liberty
and a good life are only possible when one does not have to worry about
having enough food, decent housing, and so forth. Freedom and 16 hours of
work a day do not go together, nor do equality and poverty or solidarity
and hunger. However, anarchists consider consumerism to be a distortion
of consumption caused by the alienating and inhuman "account book"
ethics of capitalism, which crushes the individual and his or her sense 
of identity, dignity and selfhood.

B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?

Since racism, sexism and homophobia (hatred/fear of homosexuals) are 
institutionalised throughout society, sexual, racial and gay oppression are 
commonplace. The primary cause of these three evil attitudes is the need for 
ideologies that justify domination and exploitation, which are inherent in 
hierarchy -- in other words, "theories" that "justify" and "explain" 
oppression and injustice. As Tacitus said, "We hate those whom we injure." 
Those who oppress others always find reasons to regard their victims as 
"inferior" and hence deserving of their fate. Elites need some way to 
justify their superior social and economic positions. Since the social 
system is obviously unfair and elitist, attention must be distracted to other, 
less inconvenient, "facts," such as alleged superiority based on biology 
or "nature." Therefore, doctrines of sexual, racial, and ethnic superiority 
are inevitable in hierarchical, class-stratified societies.

We will take each form of bigotry in turn.

From an economic standpoint, racism is associated with the exploitation of
cheap labour at home and imperialism abroad. Indeed, early capitalist 
development in both America and Europe was strengthened by the bondage of 
people, particularly those of African descent. In the Americas, Australia and
other parts of the world the slaughter of the original inhabitants and the 
expropriation of their land was also a key aspect in the growth of capitalism. 
As the subordination of foreign nations proceeds by force, it appears to 
the dominant nation that it owes its mastery to its special natural qualities, 
in other words to its "racial" characteristics. Thus imperialists have 
frequently appealed to the Darwinian doctrine of "Survival of the Fittest" 
to give their racism a basis in "nature." 

In Europe, one of the first theories of racial superiority was proposed by
Gobineau in the 1850s to establish the natural right of the aristocracy to
rule over France. He argued that the French aristocracy was originally of
Germanic origin while the "masses" were Gallic or Celtic, and that since
the Germanic race was "superior", the aristocracy had a natural right to
rule. Although the French "masses" didn't find this theory particularly
persuasive, it was later taken up by proponents of German expansion and
became the origin of German racial ideology, used to justify Nazi
oppression of Jews and other "non-Aryan" types. Notions of the "white
man's burden" and "Manifest Destiny" developed at about the same time 
in England and to a lesser extent in America, and were used to rationalise 
Anglo-Saxon conquest and world domination on a "humanitarian" basis.

Racism and authoritarianism at home and abroad has gone hand in
hand. As Rudolf Rocker argued, "[a]ll advocates of the race doctrine 
have been and are the associates and defenders of every political and
social reaction, advocates of the power principle in its most brutal
form . . . He who thinks that he sees in all political and social 
antagonisms merely blood-determined manifestations of race, denies all 
conciliatory influence of ideas, all community of ethical feeling, 
and must at every crisis take refuge in brute force. In fact, race
theory is only the cult of power." Racism aids the consolidation of 
elite power for by attacking "all the achievements . . . in the 
direction of personal freedom" and the idea of equality "[n]o better 
moral justification could be produced for the industrial bondage 
which our holders of industrial power keep before them as a picture 
of the future." [_Nationalism and Culture_, pp. 337-8]

The idea of racial superiority was also found to have great domestic
utility. As Paul Sweezy points out, "[t]he intensification of social
conflict within the advanced capitalist countries. . . has to be 
directed as far as possible into innocuous channels -- innocuous, 
that is to say, from the standpoint of capitalist class rule. The 
stirring up of antagonisms along racial lines is a convenient method 
of directing attention away from class struggle," which of course is 
dangerous to ruling-class interests. [_Theory of Capitalist Development_, 
p. 311] 

Employers and politicians have often deliberately fostered divisions 
among workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of "divide and 
rule." In other contexts, like Tzarist Russia, Northern Ireland or 
Scotland, the employers have used religion in the same way. In 
others, immigrants and native born is the dividing line. The net
effect is the same, social oppressions which range from the extreme
violence anarchists like Emma Goldman denounced in the American South
("the atrocities rampant in the South, of negroes lynched, tortured
and burned by infuriated crowds without a hand being raised or a 
word said for their protection" [_Emma Goldman: A Documentary History
of the American Years_, vol. 1, p. 386]) or the pogroms against Jews
in Tsarist Russia to discrimination in where people can live, what 
jobs people can get, less pay and so on.

For those in power, this makes perfect sense as racism (like other 
forms of bigotry) can be used to split and divide the working class 
by getting people to blame others of their class for the conditions 
they all suffer. In this way, the anger people feel about the problems 
they face are turned away from their real causes onto scapegoats. Thus 
white workers are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) encouraged, 
for example, to blame unemployment, poverty and crime on blacks or 
Hispanics instead of capitalism and the (white, male) elites who run 
it and who directly benefit from low wages and high profits. 
Discrimination against racial minorities and women makes sense for 
capitalism, for in this way profits are enlarged directly and indirectly. 
As jobs and investment opportunities are denied to the disadvantaged 
groups, their wages can be depressed below prevailing levels and profits, 
correspondingly, increased. Indirectly, discrimination adds capitalist 
profits and power by increasing unemployment and setting workers 
against each other. Such factors ensure that capitalism will never 
"compete" discrimination way as some free-market capitalist economists 
argue.

In other words, capitalism has benefited and will continue to benefit 
from its racist heritage. Racism has provided pools of cheap labour for 
capitalists to draw upon and permitted a section of the population to 
be subjected to worse treatment, so increasing profits by reducing 
working conditions and other non-pay related costs. In America, blacks 
still get paid less than whites for the same work (around 10% less 
than white workers with the same education, work experience, occupation 
and other relevent demographic variables). This is transferred into 
wealth inequalities. In 1998, black incomes were 54% of white incomes 
while black net worth (including residential) was 12% and nonresidential 
net worth just 3% of white. For Hispanics, the picture was similar with 
incomes just 62% of whites, net worth, 4% and nonresidential net worth 0%. 
While just under 15% of white households had zero or negative net worth, 
27% of black households and 36% Hispanic were in the same situation. Even
at similar levels of income, black households were significantly less
wealthy than white ones. [Doug Henwood, _After the New Economy_, p. 99
and pp. 125-6] 

All this means that blacks are "subjected to oppression and exploitation 
on the dual grounds of race and class, and thus have to fight the extra 
battles against racism and discrimination." [Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, 
_Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite_]

Sexism only required a "justification" once women started to act for
themselves and demand equal rights. Before that point, sexual oppression
did not need to be "justified" -- it was "natural" (saying that, of course,
equality between the sexes was stronger before the rise of Christianity as
a state religion and capitalism so the "place" of women in society has 
fallen over the last few hundred years before rising again thanks to the 
women's movement). 

The nature of sexual oppression can be seen from marriage. Emma Goldman
pointed out that marriage "stands for the sovereignty of the man over the 
women," with her "complete submission" to the husbands "whims and commands." 
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 164] As Carole Pateman notes, until "the late 
nineteenth century the legal and civil position of a wife resembled that 
of a slave . . . A slave had no independent legal existence apart from his 
master, and husband and wife became 'one person,' the person of the 
husband." Indeed, the law "was based on the assumption that a wife was 
(like) property" and only the marriage contract "includes the explicit 
commitment to obey." [_The Sexual Contract_, p. 119, p. 122 and p. 181] 

However, when women started to question the assumptions of male domination, 
numerous theories were developed to explain why women's oppression and 
domination by men was "natural." Because men enforced their rule over women 
by force, men's "superiority" was argued to be a "natural" product of their 
gender, which is associated with greater physical strength (on the premise 
that "might makes right"). In the 17th century, it was argued that women 
were more like animals than men, thus "proving" that women had as much right 
to equality with men as sheep did. More recently, elites have embraced 
socio-biology in response to the growing women's movement. By "explaining" 
women's oppression on biological grounds, a social system run by men and 
for men could be ignored. 

Women's subservient role also has economic value for capitalism (we should
note that Goldman considered capitalism to be another "paternal arrangement"
like marriage, both of which robbed people of their "birthright," "stunts"
their growth, "poisons" their bodies and keeps people in "ignorance, in
poverty and dependence." [Op. Cit., p. 210]). Women often provide necessary 
(and unpaid) labour which keeps the (usually) male worker in good condition; 
and it is primarily women who raise the next generation of wage-slaves (again 
without pay) for capitalist owners to exploit. Moreover, women's subordination 
gives working-class men someone to look down upon and, sometimes, a convenient 
target on whom they can take out their frustrations (instead of stirring up 
trouble at work). As Lucy Parsons pointed out, a working class woman is "a 
slave to a slave."

Sexism, like all forms of bigotry, is reflected in relative incomes and
wealth levels. In the US women, on average, were being paid 57% the amount 
men were in 2001 (an improvement than the 39% 20 years earlier). Part of 
this is due to fewer women working than men, but for those who do work 
outside the home their incomes were 66% than of men's (up from 47% in 1980 
and 38% in 1970). Those who work full time, their incomes 76% of men's,
up from the 60% average through most of the 1970s. However, as with the
black-white gap, this is due in part to the stagnant income of male workers 
(in 1998 men's real incomes were just 1% above 1989 levels while women's
were 14% above). So rather than the increase in income being purely the 
result of women entering high-paying and largely male occupations and 
them closing the gender gap, it has also been the result of the intense 
attacks on the working class since the 1980s which has de-unionised and 
de-industrialised America. This has resulted in a lot of high-paying male 
jobs have been lost and more and more women have entered the job market to 
make sure their families make ends. [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 91-2]

Turning away from averages, we discover that sexism results in women 
being paid about 12% less than men during the same job, with the same
relative variables (like work experience, education and so forth). 
Needless to say, as with racism, such "relevant variables" are 
themselves shaped by discrimination. Women, like blacks, are less 
likely to get job interviews and jobs. Sexism even affects types of 
jobs, for example, "caring" professions pay less than non-caring ones 
because they are seen as feminine and involve the kinds of tasks which 
women do at home without pay. In general, female dominated industries 
pay less. In 1998, occupations that were over 90% male had a median 
wage almost 10% above average while those over 90% female, almost 25% 
below. One study found that a 30% increase in women in an occupation 
translated into a 10% decline in average pay. Needless to say, having 
children is bad economic news for most women (women with children earn 
10 to 15% less than women without children while for men the opposite 
is the case). Having maternity level, incidentally, have a far smaller 
motherhood penalty. [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 95-7]

The oppression of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is inextricably linked 
with sexism. A patriarchal, capitalist society cannot see homosexual 
practices as the normal human variations they are because they blur 
that society's rigid gender roles and sexist stereotypes. Most young 
gay people keep their sexuality to themselves for fear of being kicked 
out of home and all gays have the fear that some "straights" will try 
to kick their sexuality out of them if they express their sexuality 
freely. As with those subject to other forms of bigotry, gays are 
also discriminated against economically (gay men earning about 4-7% 
less than the average straight man [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 100]). Thus 
the social oppression which result in having an alternative sexuality 
are experienced on many different levels, from extreme violence to 
less pay for doing the same work.

Gays are not oppressed on a whim but because of the specific need of 
capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary 
- and inexpensive - creator of submissive people (growing up within the 
authoritarian family gets children used to, and "respectful" of, hierarchy 
and subordination -- see section B.1.5) as well as provider and carer for 
the workforce fulfils an important need for capitalism. Alternative 
sexualities represent a threat to the family model because they provide 
a different role model for people. This means that gays are going to 
be in the front line of attack whenever capitalism wants to reinforce 
"family values" (i.e. submission to authority, "tradition", "morality"
and so on). The introduction of Clause 28 in Britain is a good example 
of this, with the government making it illegal for public bodies to 
promote gay sexuality (i.e. to present it as anything other than a 
perversion). In American, the right is also seeking to demonise 
homosexuality as part of their campaign to reinforce the values of
the patriarchal family unit and submission to "traditional" authority. 
Therefore, the oppression of people based on their sexuality is unlikely 
to end until sexism is eliminated. 

This is not all. As well as adversely affecting those subject to them, 
sexism, racism and homophobia are harmful to those who practice them 
(and in some way benefit from them) within the working class itself. 
Why this should be the case is obvious, once you think about it. All
three divide the working class, which means that whites, males and 
heterosexuals hurt themselves by maintaining a pool of low-paid 
competing labour, ensuring low wages for their own wives, daughters,
mothers, relatives and friends. Such divisions create inferior conditions 
and wages for all as capitalists gain a competitive advantage using this
pool of cheap labour, forcing all capitalists to cut conditions and wages
to survive in the market (in addition, such social hierarchies, by undermining 
solidarity against the employer on the job and the state possibly create a 
group of excluded workers who could become scabs during strikes). Also, 
"privileged" sections of the working class lose out because their wages and 
conditions are less than those which unity could have won them. Only the 
boss really wins. 

This can be seen from research into this subject. The researcher Al Szymanski 
sought to systematically and scientifically test the proposition that white 
workers gain from racism ["Racial Discrimination and White Gain", in 
_American Sociological Review_, vol. 41, no. 3, June 1976, pp. 403-414]. 
He compared the situation of "white" and "non-white" (i.e. black, Native 
American, Asian and Hispanic) workers in United States and found several 
key things:

	(1) the narrower the gap between white and black wages in an American 
	    state, the higher white earnings were relative to white earnings 
	    elsewhere. This means that "whites do not benefit economically by 
	    economic discrimination. White workers especially appear to benefit 
	    economically from the *absence* of economic discrimination. . . 
	    both in the absolute level of their earnings *and* in relative 
	    equality among whites." [p. 413] In other words, the less wage 
	    discrimination there was against black workers, the better were 
	    the wages that white workers received.

	(2) the more "non-white" people in the population of a given 
	    American State, the more inequality there was between whites. 
	    In other words, the existence of a poor, oppressed group of 
	    workers reduced the wages of white workers, although it did 
	    not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much
	    ("the greater the discrimination against [non-white] people,
	    the greater the inequality among whites" [p. 410]). So white 
	    workers clearly lost economically from this discrimination.

	(3) He also found that "the more intense racial discrimination is, 
	    the lower are the white earnings *because* of . . . [its effect 
	    on] working-class solidarity." [p. 412] In other words, racism 
	    economically disadvantages white workers because it undermines 
	    the solidarity between black and white workers and weakens 
	    trade union organisation.

So overall, these white workers receive some apparent privileges from racism, 
but are in fact screwed by it. Thus racism and other forms of hierarchy 
actually works against the interests of those working class people who 
practice it -- and, by weakening workplace and social unity, benefits the
ruling class.

In addition, a wealth of alternative viewpoints, insights, experiences, 
cultures, thoughts and so on are denied the racist, sexist or homophobe. 
Their minds are trapped in a cage, stagnating within a mono-culture -- and 
stagnation is death for the personality. Such forms of oppression are 
dehumanising for those who practice them, for the oppressor lives as a
*role*, not as a person, and so are restricted by it and cannot express 
their individuality *freely* (and so do so in very limited ways). This
warps the personality of the oppressor and impoverishes their own life and
personality. Homophobia and sexism also limits the flexibility of all 
people, gay or straight, to choose the sexual expressions and relationships 
that are right for them. The sexual repression of the sexist and homophobe 
will hardly be good for their mental health, their relationships or general 
development. 

From the anarchist standpoint, oppression based on race, sex or sexuality 
will remain forever intractable under capitalism or, indeed, under any 
economic or political system based on domination and exploitation. While 
individual members of "minorities" may prosper, racism as a justification 
for inequality is too useful a tool for elites to discard. By using the 
results of racism (e.g. poverty) as a justification for racist ideology, 
criticism of the status quo can, yet again, be replaced by nonsense about 
"nature" and "biology." Similarly with sexism or discrimination against gays. 

The long-term solution is obvious: dismantle capitalism and the hierarchical, 
economically class-stratified society with which it is bound up. By getting 
rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation and its consequent imperialism 
and poverty, we will also eliminate the need for ideologies of racial or 
sexual superiority used to justify the oppression of one group by another 
or to divide and weaken the working class. However, struggles against 
bigotry cannot be left until after a revolution. If they were two things 
are likely: one, such a revolution would be unlikely to happen and, two,
if it were then these problems would more than likely remain in the new
society created by it. Therefore the negative impacts of inequality can 
and must be fought in the here and now, like any form of hierarchy. Indeed, 
as we discuss in more detail section B.1.6 by doing so we make life a bit 
better in the here and now as well as bringing the time when such 
inequalities are finally ended nearer. Only this can ensure that we can 
all live as free and equal individuals in a world without the blights 
of sexism, racism, homophobia or religious hatred.

Needless to say, anarchists totally reject the kind of "equality" that 
accepts other kinds of hierarchy, that accepts the dominant priorities of
capitalism and the state and accedes to the devaluation of relationships and 
individuality in name of power and wealth. There is a kind of "equality" in
having "equal opportunities," in having black, gay or women bosses and 
politicians, but one that misses the point. Saying "Me too!" instead of
"What a mess!" does not suggest real liberation, just different bosses and
new forms of oppression. We need to look at the way society is organised,
not at the sex, colour, nationality or sexuality of who is giving the orders!

B.1.5  How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation
       created? 

We noted in section A.3.6 that hierarchical, authoritarian institutions
tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence
creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both
"respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise
it themselves on subordinates.  Individuals with such a character
structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are
afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom.  It seems
"natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the
authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with
an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. 
Thus we have the spectacle of so-called "Libertarians" and "anarcho"
capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating
factory fascism and privatised  states.  In short, authoritarian
civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an
intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society,
it creates masses of people who support the status quo. 

Wilhelm Reich has given one of the most thorough analyses of the
psychological processes involved in the reproduction of authoritarian
civilisation.  Reich based his analysis on four of Freud's most solidly
grounded discoveries, namely, (1) that there exists an unconscious part of
the mind which has a powerful though irrational influence on behaviour; (2)
that even the small child develops a lively "genital" sexuality, i.e. a
desire for sexual pleasure which has nothing to do with procreation; (3)
that childhood sexuality along with the Oedipal conflicts that arise in
parent-child relations under monogamy and patriarchy are usually repressed
through fear of punishment or disapproval for sexual acts and thoughts;
(4) that this blocking of the child's natural sexual activity and
extinguishing it from memory does not weaken its force in the unconscious,
but actually intensifies it and enables it to manifest itself in various
pathological disturbances and anti-social drives; and (5) that, far from
being of divine origin, human moral codes are derived from the educational
measures used by the parents and parental surrogates in earliest
childhood, the most effective of these being the ones opposed to childhood
sexuality.  

By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a
woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour
was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as
authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came
to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally
developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a
certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their
sons.  In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to
pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her
husband's clan (i.e. the chief's).  By arranging many such marriages for
his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of
polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth.  Thus society began
to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. 

To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was
required.  However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain
without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show,
children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt
successfully to life-long monogamy.  Therefore, along with class
stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods
were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the
new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. Thus there is a
historical correlation between, on the one hand, pre-patriarchal society,
primitive libertarian communism (or "work democracy," to use Reich's
expression), economic equality, and sexual freedom, and on the other,
patriarchal society, a private-property economy, economic class
stratification, and sexual repression.  As Reich puts it:     

"Every tribe that developed from a [matricentric] to a patriarchal
organisation had to change the sexual structure of its members to produce
a sexuality in keeping with its new form of life.  This was a necessary
change because the shifting of power and of wealth from the democratic
gens [maternal clans] to the authoritarian family of the chief was mainly
implemented with the help of the suppression of the sexual strivings of
the people.  It was in this way that sexual suppression became an essential
factor in the division of society into classes.

"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the
transformation of the one organisation into the other.  In view of the
fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family
strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the
male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen
interest in making the nuptial ties permanent.  At this stage, in other
words, only the man had an interest in marriage.  In this way natural
work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any
time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital
relationship of patriarchy.   The permanent monogamous marriage became the
basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today.  To
safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and
greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings" 
[_The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, p. 90]

The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from
matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives
(sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then
also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality,
which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in
pre-patriarchal societies.  In this way, sex began to be regarded as 
"dirty," "diabolical," "wicked,"  etc.  -- which it had indeed become 
through the creation of secondary drives.  Thus:

"The patriarchal- authoritarian sexual order that resulted from the
revolutionary processes of latter-day [matricentrism] (economic
independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a growing
exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means of
production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian ideology by
depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their sexual freedom,
making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests in the service of
economic subjugation.  From now on, sexuality is indeed distorted; it
becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be curbed." [Reich, Op. Cit., 
p. 88]

Once the beginnings of patriarchy are in place, the creation of a fully
authoritarian society based on the psychological crippling of its members
through sexual suppression follows:  

"The moral inhibition of the child's natural sexuality, the last stage of
which is the severe impairment of the child's *genital* sexuality, makes
the child afraid, shy, fearful of authority, obedient, 'good,' and
'docile' in the authoritarian sense of the words.  It has a crippling
effect on man's rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now
burdened with severe fear; and since sex is a forbidden subject, thought
in general and man's critical faculty also become inhibited.  In short,
morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress
and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order.   Thus, the
family is the authoritarian state in miniature, to which the child must
learn to adapt himself as a preparation for the general social adjustment
required of him later.  Man's authoritarian structure -- this must be
clearly established -- is basically produced by the embedding of sexual
inhibitions and fear." [Reich, Op. Cit., p. 30] 

In this way, by damaging the individual's power to rebel and think for
him/herself, the inhibition of childhood sexuality -- and indeed other
forms of free, natural expression of bioenergy (e.g. shouting, crying,
running, jumping, etc.) -- becomes the most important weapon in creating
reactionary personalities.  This is why every reactionary politician puts
such an emphasis on "strengthening the family" and promoting "family
values" (i.e. patriarchy, compulsive monogamy, premarital chastity,
corporal punishment, etc.). In the words of Reich:

"Since authoritarian society reproduces itself in the individual
structures of the masses with the help of the authoritarian family, it
follows that political reaction has to regard and defend the authoritarian
family as *the* basis of the "state, culture, and civilisation. . . ." 
[It is] *political reaction's germ cell*, the most important centre for
the production of reactionary men and women.  Originating and developing
from definite social processes, it becomes the most essential institution
for the preservation of the authoritarian system that shapes it" [Op.
Cit., p. 104-105]

The family is the most essential institution for this purpose because
children are most vulnerable to psychological maiming in their first few
years, from the time of birth to about six years of age, during which time
they are mostly in the charge of their parents.  The schools and churches 
then continue the process of conditioning once the children are old enough
to be away from their parents, but they are generally unsuccessful if the
proper foundation has not been laid very early in life by the parents. 
Thus A.S. Neill observes that "the nursery training is very like the
kennel training.  The whipped child, like the whipped puppy, grows into an
obedient, inferior adult.  And as we train our dogs to suit our own
purposes, so we train our children.  In that kennel, the nursery, the
human dogs must be clean; they must feed when we think it convenient for
them to feed.  I saw a hundred thousand obedient, fawning dogs wag their
tails in the Templehof, Berlin, when in 1935, the great trainer Hitler
whistled his commands." [_Summerhill: a Radical Approach to Child Rearing_, 
p. 100] 

The family is also the main agency of repression during adolescence, when
sexual energy reaches its peak.  This is because the vast majority
of parents provide no private space for adolescents to pursue undisturbed 
sexual relationships with their partners, but in fact actively discourage
such behaviour, often (as in fundamentalist Christian families) demanding
complete abstinence -- at the very time when abstinence is most
impossible!  Moreover, since teenagers are economically dependent on their
parents under capitalism, with no societal provision of housing or
dormitories allowing for sexual freedom, young people have no
alternative but to submit to irrational parental demands for abstention
from premarital sex.  This in turn forces them to engage in furtive sex in
the back seats of cars or other out-of-the-way places where they cannot
relax or obtain full sexual satisfaction.  As Reich found, when sexuality
is repressed and laden with anxiety, the result is always some degree of
what he terms  "orgastic impotence":  the inability to fully surrender to
the flow of energy discharged during orgasm.  Hence there is an 
incomplete release of sexual tension, which results in a state of chronic
bioenergetic stasis.  Such a condition, Reich found, is the breeding
ground for neuroses and reactionary attitudes.  (For further details see 
the section J.6).  

In this connection it is interesting to note that "primitive" societies,
such as the Trobriand Islanders, prior to their developing
patriarchal-authoritarian institutions, provided special community houses
where teenagers could go with their partners to enjoy undisturbed sexual
relationships -- and this with society's full approval.  Such an
institution would be taken for granted in an anarchist society, as it is
implied by the concept of freedom.  (For more on adolescent sexual
liberation, see section J.6.8.) 

Nationalistic feelings can also be traced to the authoritarian family.  A
child's attachment to its mother is, of course, natural and is the basis
of all family ties.  Subjectively, the emotional core of the concepts of
homeland and nation are mother and family, since the mother is the
homeland of the child, just as the family is the "nation in miniature." 
According to Reich, who carefully studied the mass appeal of Hitler's
"National Socialism," nationalistic sentiments are a direct continuation of
the family tie and are rooted in a *fixated* tie to the mother.  As Reich
points out, although infantile attachment to the mother is natural,
*fixated* attachment is not, but is a social product.  In puberty, the tie
to the mother would make room for other attachments, i.e., natural sexual
relations, *if* the unnatural sexual restrictions imposed on adolescents
did not cause it to be eternalised.  It is in the form of this socially
conditioned externalisation that fixation on the mother becomes the basis
of nationalist feelings in the adult; and it is only at this stage that it
becomes a reactionary social force. 

Later writers who have followed Reich in analysing the process of creating
reactionary character structures have broadened the scope of his analysis
to include other important inhibitions, besides sexual ones, that are
imposed on children and adolescents. Rianne Eisler, for example, in her
book _Sacred Pleasure_, stresses that it is not just a sex-negative
attitude but a *pleasure*-negative attitude that creates the kinds of
personalities in question.  Denial of the value of pleasurable sensations
permeates our unconscious, as reflected, for example, in the common idea
that to enjoy the pleasures of the body is the "animalistic" (and hence
"bad") side of human nature, as contrasted with the "higher" pleasures of
the mind and "spirit."  By such dualism, which denies a spiritual aspect
to the body, people are made to feel guilty about enjoying any
pleasurable sensations -- a conditioning that does, however, prepare them
for lives based on the sacrifice of pleasure (or indeed, even of life
itself) under capitalism and statism, with their requirements of mass
submission to alienated labour, exploitation, military service to protect
ruling-class interests, and so on.  And at the same time, authoritarian
ideology emphasises the value of suffering, as for example through the
glorification of the tough,  insensitive warrior hero, who suffers (and
inflicts "necessary" suffering on others ) for the sake of some pitiless
ideal.  

Eisler also points out that there is "ample evidence that people
who grow up in families where rigid hierarchies and painful punishments
are the norm learn to suppress anger toward their parents.  There is also
ample evidence that this anger is then often deflected against
traditionally disempowered groups (such as minorities, children, and
women)." [_Sacred Pleasure_, p. 187] This repressed anger then becomes 
fertile ground for reactionary politicians, whose mass appeal usually 
rests in part on scapegoating minorities for society's problems.  

As the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswick documents in _The Authoritarian
Personality_, people who have been conditioned through childhood abuse to
surrender their will to the requirements of feared authoritarian parents,
also tend to be very  susceptible as adults to surrender their will and
minds to authoritarian leaders.  "In other words," Frenkel-Brunswick 
summarises, "at the same time that they learn to deflect their repressed 
rage against those they perceive as weak, they also learn to submit to 
autocratic or 'strong-man' rule. Moreover, having been severely punished 
for any hint of rebellion (even 'talking back' about being treated unfairly), 
they gradually also learn to deny to themselves that there was anything 
wrong with what was done to them as children -- and to do it in turn to 
their own children." [_The Authoritarian Personality_, p. 187]

These are just some of the mechanisms that perpetuate the status quo by
creating the kinds of personalities who worship authority and fear 
freedom.  Consequently, anarchists are generally opposed to traditional
child-rearing practices, the patriarchal-authoritarian family (and its
"values"), the suppression of adolescent sexuality, and the
pleasure-denying, pain-affirming attitudes taught by the Church and in
most schools.  In place of these, anarchists favour non-authoritarian,
non-repressive  child-rearing practices and educational methods (see
section J.6 and J.5.13, respectively) whose purpose is to prevent, or at
least minimise, the psychological crippling of individuals, allowing them
instead to develop natural self-regulation and self-motivated learning. 
This, we believe, is the only way to for people to grow up into happy,
creative, and truly freedom-loving individuals who will provide the
psychological ground where anarchist economic and political institutions
can flourish.

B.1.6 Can hierarchy be ended?

Faced with the fact that hierarchy, in its many distinctive forms, has 
been with us such a long time and so negatively shapes those subject to 
it, some may conclude that the anarchist hope of ending it, or even 
reducing it, is little more than a utopian dream. Surely, it will be 
argued, as anarchists acknowledge that those subject to a hierarchy 
adapt to it this automatically excludes the creation of people able 
to free themselves from it?

Anarchists disagree. Hierarchy can be ended, both in specific forms and
in general. A quick look at the history of the human species shows that
this is the case. People who have been subject to monarchy have ended 
it, creating republics where before absolutism reigned. Slavery and 
serfdom have been abolished. Alexander Berkman simply stated the obvious
when he pointed out that "many ideas, once held to be true, have come
to be regarded as wrong and evil. Thus the ideas of divine right of 
kings, of slavery and serfdom. There was a time when the whole world
believed those institutions to be right, just, and unchangeable."
However, they became "discredited and lost their hold upon the people,
and finally the institutions that incorporated those ideas were 
abolished" as "they were useful only to the master class" and "were
done away with by popular uprisings and revolutions." [_What is 
Anarchism?_, p. 178] It is unlikely, therefore, that current forms 
of hierarchy are exceptions to this process. 

Today, we can see that this is the case. Malatesta's comments of over
one hundred years ago are still valid: "the oppressed masses . . . 
have never completely resigned themselves to oppression and poverty 
. . . [and] show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and 
wellbeing." [_Anarchy_, p. 33] Those at the bottom are constantly 
resisting both hierarchy and its the negative effects and, equally 
important, creating non-hierarchical ways of living and fighting. 
This constant process of self-activity and self-liberation can be 
seen from the labour, women's and other movements -- in which, 
to some degree, people create their own alternatives based upon 
their own dreams and hopes. Anarchism is based upon, and grew out 
of, this process of resistance, hope and direct action. In other
words, the libertarian elements that the oppressed continually 
produce in their struggles within and against hierarchical systems 
are extrapolated and generalised into what is called anarchism. It is
these struggles and the anarchistic elements they produce which make
the end of all forms of hierarchy not only desirable, but possible.

So while the negative impact of hierarchy is not surprising, neither
is the resistance to it. This is because the individual "is not a blank 
sheet of paper on which culture can write its text; he [or she] is an 
entity charged with energy and structured in specific ways, which, 
while adapting itself, reacts in specific and ascertainable ways to 
external conditions." In this "process of adaptation," people develop
"definite mental and emotional reactions which follow from specific
properties" of our nature. [Eric Fromm, _Man for Himself_, p. 23 and 
p. 22] For example:

"Man can adapt himself to slavery, but he reacts to it by lowering 
his intellectual and moral qualities . . . Man can adapt himself to 
cultural conditions which demand the repression of sexual strivings, 
but in achieving this adaptation he develops . . . neurotic symptoms. 
He can adapt to almost any culture pattern, but in so far as these 
are contradictory to his nature he develops mental and emotional 
disturbances which force him eventually change these conditions 
since he cannot change his nature. . . . If . . . man could adapt 
himself to all conditions without fighting those which are against 
his nature, he would have no history. Human evolution is rooted in 
man's adaptability and in certain indestructible qualities of his 
nature which compel him to search for conditions better adjusted 
to his intrinsic needs." [Op. Cit., pp. 22-23]

So as well as adaptation to hierarchy, there is resistance. This 
means that modern society (capitalism), like any hierarchical society, 
faces a direct contradiction. On the one hand, "capitalism divides 
society into a narrow stratum of directors (whose function is to 
decide and organise everything) and the vast majority of the population,
who are reduced to carrying out (executing) the decisions made
by these directors. As a result of this very fact, most people
experience their own lives as something alien to them . . . The
result is not only an enormous waste due to untapped capacity.
The system does more: It *necessarily* engenders opposition, 
a struggle against it by those upon whom it seeks to impose 
itself. Long before one can speak of revolution or political 
consciousness, people refuse in their everyday working lives to
be treated like objects . . . The net result is not only waste
but perpetual conflict." [Cornelius Castoriadis, _Political
and Social Writings_, vol. 2, p. 93]

For the inequality in wealth and power produced by hierarchies, 
between the powerful and the powerless, between the rich and 
the poor, has not been ordained by god, nature or some other 
superhuman force. It has been created by a specific social system, 
its institutions and workings -- a system based upon authoritarian 
social relationships which effect us both physically and mentally. So 
there is hope. Just as authoritarian traits are learned, so can they 
be *unlearned.* As Carole Pateman summarises, the evidence supports 
the argument "that we do learn to participate by participating" and 
that a participatory environment "might also be effective in 
diminishing tendencies toward non-democratic attitudes in the 
individual." [_Participaton and Democratic Theory_, p. 105]
So oppression reproduces resistance and the seeds of its own
destruction.

It is for this reason anarchists stress the importance of 
self-liberation (see section A.2.7) and "support all struggles 
for partial freedom, because we are convinced that one learns 
through struggle, and that once one begins to enjoy a little 
freedom one ends by wanting it all." [Malatesta, _Errico 
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 195]  By means of direct 
action (see section J.2), people exert themselves and stand up 
for themselves. This breaks the conditioning of hierarchy, breaks 
the submissiveness which hierarchical social relationships both 
need and produce. Thus the daily struggles against oppression 
"serve as a training camp to develop" a person's "understanding 
of [their] proper role in life, to cultivate [their] self-reliance 
and independence, teach him [or her] mutual help and co-operation, 
and make him [or her] conscious of [their] responsibility. [They] 
will learn to decide and act on [their] own behalf, not leaving 
it to leaders or politicians to attend to [their] affairs and 
look out for [their] welfare. It will be [them] who will determine, 
together with [their] fellows . . . , what they want and what 
methods will best serve their aims." [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 206]

In other words, struggle encourages all the traits hierarchy erodes 
and, consequently, develop the abilities not only to question and
resist authority but, ultimately, end it once and for all. This means 
that any struggle *changes* those who take part in it, politicising 
them and transforming their personalities by shaking off the servile
traits produced and required by hierarchy. As an example, after 
the sit-down strikes in Flint, Michigan, in 1937 one eye-witness 
saw how "the auto worker became a different human being. The women 
that had participated actively became a different type of women 
. . . They carried themselves with a different walk, their heads 
were high, and they had confidence in themselves." [Genora (Johnson) 
Dollinger, contained in _Voices of a People's History of the United 
States_, Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove (eds.), p. 349] Such changes 
happen in all struggles (also see section J.4.2). Anarchists are not 
surprised for, as discussed in section J.1 and J.2.1, we have long 
recognised the liberating aspects of social struggle and the key role 
it plays in creating free people and the other preconditions for 
needed for an anarchist society (like the initial social structure 
-- see section I.2.3).

Needless to say, a hierarchical system like capitalism cannot 
survive with a non-submissive working class and the bosses spend a 
considerable amount of time, energy and resources trying to break the 
spirits of the working class so they will submit to authority (either
unwillingly, by fear of being fired, or willingly, by fooling them 
into believing that hierarchy is natural or by rewarding subservient 
behaviour). Unsurprisingly, this never completely succeeds and so 
capitalism is marked by constant struggles between the oppressed and 
oppressor. Some of these struggles succeed, some do not. Some are 
defensive, some are not. Some, like strikes, are visible, other less 
so (such a working slowly and less efficiently than management desires). 
And these struggles are waged by both sides of the hierarchical divide. 
Those subject to hierarchy fight to limit it and increase their autonomy 
and those who exercise authority fight to increase their power over 
others. Who wins varies. The 1960s and 1970s saw a marked increase in
victories for the oppressed all throughout capitalism but, unfortunately,
since the 1980s, as we discuss in section C.8.3, there has been a 
relentless class war conducted by the powerful which has succeeded in 
inflicting a series of defeats on working class people. Unsurprisingly, 
the rich have got richer and more powerful since.

So anarchists take part in the on-going social struggle in society 
in an attempt to end it in the only way possible, the victory of the
oppressed. A key part of this is to fight for partial freedoms, for
minor or major reforms, as this strengthens the spirit of revolt and
starts the process towards the final end of hierarchy. In such struggles
we stress the autonomy of those involved and see them not only as the 
means of getting more justice and freedom in the current unfree system
but also as a means of ending the hierarchies they are fighting once 
and for all. Thus, for example, in the class struggle we argue for 
"[o]rganisation from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, 
on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere, 
irrespective of trade, race, or country." [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., 
p. 207] Such an organisation, as we discuss in section J.5.2, would 
be run via workplace assemblies and would be the ideal means of replacing 
capitalist hierarchy in industry by genuine economic freedom, i.e. 
worker's self-management of production (see section I.3). Similarly, 
in the community we argue for popular assemblies (see section J.5.1) 
as a means of not only combating the power of the state but also 
replaced it with by free, self-managed, communities (see section I.5).

Thus the current struggle itself creates the bridge between what is
and what could be:

"Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process 
itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must *be* the formation of 
assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly
and community must become 'fighting words,' not distant panaceas. They
must be created as *modes of struggle* against the existing society, 
not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions." [Murray Bookchin, 
_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 104]

This is not all. As well as fighting the state and capitalism, we also
need fight all other forms of oppression. This means that anarchists 
argue that we need to combat social hierarchies like racism and sexism  
as well as workplace hierarchy and economic class, that we need to oppose 
homophobia and religious hatred as well as the political state. Such 
oppressions and struggles are not diversions from the struggle against 
class oppression or capitalism but part and parcel of the struggle for 
human freedom and cannot be ignored without fatally harming it.

As part of that process, anarchists encourage and support all sections 
of the population to stand up for their humanity and individuality by
resisting racist, sexist and anti-gay activity and challenging such views 
in their everyday lives, everywhere (as Carole Pateman points out, "sexual 
domination structures the workplace as well as the conjugal home" [_The 
Sexual Contract_, p. 142]). It means a struggle of all working class people
against the internal and external tyrannies we face -- we must fight against 
own our prejudices while supporting those in struggle against our common 
enemies, no matter their sex, skin colour or sexuality. Lorenzo Kom'boa 
Ervin words on fighting racism are applicable to all forms of oppression:

"Racism must be fought vigorously wherever it is found, even if in
our own ranks, and even in ones own breast. Accordingly, we must end the
system of white skin privilege which the bosses use to split the class, and
subject racially oppressed workers to super-exploitation. White workers,
especially those in the Western world, must resist the attempt to use one
section of the working class to help them advance, while holding back the
gains of another segment based on race or nationality. This kind of class
opportunism and capitulationism on the part of white labour must be directly
challenged and defeated. There can be no workers unity until the system of
super-exploitation and world White Supremacy is brought to an end." 
[_Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite_] 

Progress towards equality can and has been made. While it is still true that 
(in the words of Emma Goldman) "[n]owhere is woman treated according to the 
merit of her work, but rather as a sex" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 177] and that
education is still patriarchal, with young women still often steered away 
from traditionally "male" courses of study and work (which teaches children 
that men and women are assigned different roles in society and sets them up 
to accept these limitations as they grow up) it is also true that the position 
of women, like that of blacks and gays, *has* improved. This is due to the 
various self-organised, self-liberation movements that have continually 
developed throughout history and these are *the* key to fighting oppression 
in the short term (and creating the potential for the long term solution of 
dismantling capitalism and the state).

Emma Goldman argued that emancipation begins "in [a] woman's soul." Only
by a process of internal emancipation, in which the oppressed get to know
their own value, respect themselves and their culture, can they be in a 
position to effectively combat (and overcome) external oppression and 
attitudes. Only when you respect yourself can you be in a position to
get others to respect you. Those men, whites and heterosexuals who are 
opposed to bigotry, inequality and injustice, must support oppressed 
groups and refuse to condone racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes 
and actions by others or themselves. For anarchists, "not a single 
member of the Labour movement may with impunity be discriminated against, 
suppressed or ignored. . . Labour [and other] organisations must be built 
on the principle of equal liberty of all its members. This equality means 
that only if each worker is a free and independent unit, co-operating with 
the others from his or her mutual interests, can the whole labour 
organisation work successfully and become powerful." [Lorenzo Kom'boa 
Ervin, Op. Cit.]

We must all treat people as equals, while at the same time respecting their
differences. Diversity is a strength and a source of joy, and anarchists
reject the idea that equality means conformity. By these methods, of
internal self-liberation and solidarity against external oppression, we
can fight against bigotry. Racism, sexism and homophobia can be reduced, 
perhaps almost eliminated, before a social revolution has occurred by those 
subject to them organising themselves, fighting back *autonomously* and 
refusing to be subjected to racial, sexual or anti-gay abuse or to allowing 
others to get away with it (which plays an essential role in making others
aware of their own attitudes and actions, attitudes they may even be
blind to!). 

The example of the *Mujeres Libres* (Free Women) in Spain during 
the 1930s shows what is possible. Women anarchists involved in the 
C.N.T. and F.A.I. organised themselves autonomously to raise the 
issue of sexism in the wider libertarian movement, to increase women's
involvement in libertarian organisations and help the process of 
women's self-liberation against male oppression. Along the way they 
also had to combat the (all too common) sexist attitudes of their 
"revolutionary" male fellow anarchists. Martha A. Ackelsberg's book 
_Free Women of Spain_ is an excellent account of this movement and 
the issues it raises for all people concerned about freedom. Decades
latter, the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s did much the same
thing, aiming to challenge the traditional sexism and patriarchy of 
capitalist society. They, too, formed their own organisations to fight
for their own needs as a group. Individuals worked together and drew 
strength for their own personal battles in the home and in wider
society. 

Another essential part of this process is for such autonomous groups
to actively support others in struggle (including members of the 
dominant race/sex/sexuality). Such practical solidarity and 
communication can, when combined with the radicalising effects of 
the struggle itself on those involved, help break down prejudice 
and bigotry, undermining the social hierarchies that oppress us 
all. For example, gay and lesbian groups supporting the 1984/5 
UK miners' strike resulted in such groups being given pride of 
place in many miners' marches. Another example is the great strike 
by Jewish immigrant workers in 1912 in London which occurred at the 
same time as a big London Dock Strike. "The common struggle brought 
Jewish and non-Jewish workers together. Joint strike meetings were held, 
and the same speakers spoke at huge joint demonstrations." The Jewish 
strike was a success, dealing a "death-blow to the sweatshop system. The 
English workers looked at the Jewish workers with quite different eyes 
after this victory." Yet the London dock strike continued and many dockers'
families were suffering real wants. The successful Jewish strikers started
a campaign "to take some of the dockers' children into their homes." This
practical support "did a great deal to strengthen the friendship between
Jewish and non-Jewish workers." [Rudolf Rocker, _London Years_, p. 129
and p. 131] This solidarity was repaid in October 1936, when the dockers
were at the forefront in stopping Mosley's fascist blackshirts marching
through Jewish areas (the famous battle of Cable street).

For whites, males and heterosexuals, the only anarchistic approach is to 
support others in struggle, refuse to tolerate bigotry in others and to 
root out their own fears and prejudices (while refusing to be uncritical 
of self-liberation struggles -- solidarity does not imply switching your 
brain off!). This obviously involves taking the issue of social oppression
into all working class organisations and activity, ensuring that no
oppressed group is marginalised within them. 

Only in this way can the hold of these social diseases be weakened and 
a better, non-hierarchical system be created. An injury to one is an 
injury to all.

B.2 Why are anarchists against the state?

As previously noted (see section B.1), anarchists oppose all forms of 
hierarchical authority. Historically, however, they have spent most 
of their time and energy opposing two main forms in particular. One is 
capitalism, the other, the state. These two forms of authority have a 
symbiotic relationship and cannot be easily separated:

"[T]he State . . . and Capitalism are facts and conceptions which we
cannot separate from each other. In the course of history these 
institutions have developed, supporting and reinforcing each other.

"They are connected with each other -- not as mere accidental 
co-incidences. They are linked together by the links of cause and
effect." [Kropotkin, _Evolution and Environment_, p. 94]

In this section, in consequence, as well as explaining why anarchists 
oppose the state, we will necessarily have to analyse the relationship 
between it and capitalism. 

So what is the state? As Malatesta put it, anarchists "have used the word 
State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, 
judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management 
of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the 
responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people 
and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with 
the power to make laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the 
people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force." 
[_Anarchy_, p. 17]

He continues:

"For us, government [or the state] is made up of all the governors; and
the governors . . . are those who have the power to make *laws* regulating 
inter-human relations and to see that they are carried out . . . [and] 
who have the power, to a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the 
social power, that is of the physical, intellectual and economic power 
of the whole community, in order to oblige everybody to carry out their 
wishes. And this power, in our opinion, constitutes the principle of
government, of authority." [Op. Cit., p. 19]

Kropotkin presented a similar analysis, arguing that the state "not only
includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a
*territorial concentration* as well as the concentration *in the hands 
of a few of many functions in the life of societies* . . . A whole 
mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to
subject some classes to the domination of others." [_The State: Its 
Historic Role_, p. 10] For Bakunin, all states "are in essence only
machines governing the masses from above, through . . . a privileged
minority, allegedly knowing the genuine interests of the people better
than the people themselves." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, 
p. 211] On this subject Murray Bookchin writes:

"Minimally, the State is a professional system of social coercion -- 
not merely a system of social administration as it is still naively
regarded by the public and by many political theorists. The word
'professional' should be emphasised as much as the word 'coercion.'
. . . It is only when coercion is institutionalised into a professional,
systematic and organised form of social control -- that is, when 
people are plucked out of their everyday lives in a community and
expected not only to 'administer' it but to do so with the backing 
of a monopoly of violence -- that we can properly speak of a State." 
[_Remaking Society_, p. 66]

As Bookchin indicates, anarchists reject the idea that the state is
the same as society or that *any* grouping of human beings living 
and organised together is a state. This confusion, as Kropotkin notes,
explains why "anarchists are generally upbraided for wanting to 
'destroy society' and of advocating a return to 'the permanent war
of each against all.'" Such a position "overlook[s] the fact that
Man lived in Societies for thousands of years before the State had
been heard of" and that, consequently, the State "is only one of the
forms assumed by society in the course of history." [Op. Cit., p. 10]

The state, therefore, is not just federations of individuals or 
peoples and so, as Malatesta stressed, cannot be used to describe 
a "human collectively gathered together in a particular territory 
and making up what is called a social unit irrespective of the 
way the way said collectivity are grouped or the state of
relations between them." It cannot be "used simply as a synonym
for society." [Op. Cit., p. 17] The state is a particular form of 
social organisation based on certain key attributes and so, we
argue, "the word 'State' . . . should be reserved for those societies 
with the hierarchical system and centralisation." [Peter Kropotkin, 
_Ethics_, p. 317f] As such, the state "is a historic, transitory
institution, a temporary form of society" and one whose "utter 
extinction" is possible as the "State is not society." [Bakunin,
_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 151]

In summary, the state is a specific way in which human affairs
are organised in a given area, a way marked by certain institutions
which, in turn, have certain characteristics. This does not imply,
however, that the state is a monolithic entity that has been the 
same from its birth to the present day. States vary in many ways, 
especially in their degree of authoritarianism, in the size and 
power of their bureaucracy and how they organise themselves. Thus
we have monarchies, oligarchies, theocracies, party dictatorships 
and (more or less) democratic states. We have ancient states, with
minimal bureaucracy, and modern ones, with enormous bureaucracy.

Moreover, anarchists argue that "the *political* regime . . . is 
always an expression of the *economic* regime which exists at the 
heart of society." This means that regardless of how the state 
changes, it "continues to be shaped by the economic system, of
which it is always the expression and, at the same time, the 
consecration and the sustaining force." Needless to say, there
is not always an exact match and sometimes "the political regime
of a country finds itself lagging behind the economic changes 
that are taking place, and in that case it will abruptly be set
aside and remodelled in a way appropriate to the economic regime
that has been established." [Kropotkin, _Words of a Rebel_, p. 118]

At other times, the state can change its form to protect the 
economic system it is an expression of. Thus we see democracies 
turn to dictatorships in the face of popular revolts and movements. 
The most obvious examples of Pinochet's Chile, Franco's Spain, 
Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany are all striking confirmations
of Bakunin's comment that while "[n]o government could serve the
economic interests of the bourgeoisie better than a republic,"
that class would "prefer . . . military dictatorship" if needed
to crush "the revolts of the proletariat." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p. 417]

However, as much as the state may change its form it still has 
certain characteristics which identify a social institution as a
state. As such, we can say that, for anarchists, the state is 
marked by three things:

	1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
	2) This violence having a "professional," institutional 
	   nature; and
	3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and 
	   initiative into the hands of a few.

Of these three aspects, the last one (its centralised, hierarchical
nature) is the most important simply because the concentration of
power into the hands of the few ensures a division of society into
government and governed (which necessitates the creation of a 
professional body to enforce that division). Hence we find Bakunin
arguing that "[w]ith the State there must go also . . . all 
organisation of social life from the top downward, via legislation 
and government." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 242] 
In other words, "the people was not governing itself." [Kropotkin, 
Op. Cit., p. 120]

This aspect implies the rest. In a state, all the people residing 
in an area are subject to the state, submitting themselves to the 
individuals who make up the institution of authority ruling that 
territory. To enforce the will of this few, they must have a 
monopoly of force within the territory. As the members of the 
state collectively monopolise political decision making power, 
they are a privileged body separated by its position and status 
from the rest of the population as a whole which means they cannot 
rely on them to enforce its will. This necessities a professional 
body of some kind to enforce their decisions, a separate police 
force or army rather than the people armed.

Given this, the division of society into rulers and ruled is the
key to what constitutes a state. Without such a division, we would 
not need a monopoly of violence and so would simply have an 
association of equals, unmarked by power and hierarchy (such as 
exists in many stateless "primitive" tribes and will exist in a 
future anarchist society). And, it must be stressed, such a division
exists even in democratic states as "with the state there is always
a hierarchical and status difference between rulers and ruled. Even
if it is a democracy, where we suppose those who rule today are 
not rulers tomorrow, there are still differences in status. In a
democratic system, only a tiny minority will ever have the opportunity
to rule and these are invariably drawn from the elite." [Harold
Barclay, _The State_, pp. 23-4] 

Thus, the "essence of government" is that "it is a thing apart, 
developing its own interests" and so is "an institution existing for
its own sake, preying upon the people, and teaching them whatever
will tend to keep it secure in its seat." [Voltairine de Cleyre,
_The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader_, p. 27 and p. 26] And so "despotism
resides not so much in the *form* of the State or power as in the 
very *principle* of the State and political power." [Bakunin, 
Op. Cit., p. 211]

As the state is the delegation of power into the hands of the few, 
it is obviously based on hierarchy. This delegation of power results 
in the elected people becoming isolated from the mass of people who 
elected them and outside of their control (see section B.2.4). In 
addition, as those elected are given power over a host of different 
issues and told to decide upon them, a bureaucracy soon develops 
around them to aid in their decision-making and enforce those 
decisions once they have been reached. However, this bureaucracy, 
due to its control of information and its permanency, soon has more 
power than the elected officials. Therefore "a highly complex state 
machine . . . leads to the formation of a class especially concerned 
with state management, which, using its acquired experience, begins to
deceive the rest for its personal advantage." [Kropotkin, _Selected
Writings on Anarchism and Revolution_, p. 61] This means that those 
who serve the people's (so-called) servant have more power than those 
they serve, just as the politician has more power than those who 
elected him. All forms of state-like (i.e. hierarchical) organisations 
inevitably spawn a bureaucracy about them. This bureaucracy soon becomes 
the de facto focal point of power in the structure, regardless of the 
official rules. 

This marginalisation and disempowerment of ordinary people (and so 
the empowerment of a bureaucracy) is the key reason for anarchist 
opposition to the state. Such an arrangement ensures that the 
individual is disempowered, subject to bureaucratic, authoritarian 
rule which reduces the person to an object or a number, *not* a 
unique individual with hopes, dreams, thoughts and feelings. As 
Proudhon forcefully argued:

"To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled,
estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the
right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so . . . To be GOVERNED is to
be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled,
taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, 
admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the 
pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be 
placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolised, 
extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, 
the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, 
tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, 
shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown it all, mocked, 
ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice;
that is its morality." [_General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 294]

Such is the nature of the state that *any* act, no matter how
evil, becomes good if it helps forward the interests of the state
and the minorities it protects. As Bakunin put it:

"*The State . . . is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the 
most complete negation of humanity.* It shatters the universal 
solidarity of all men [and women] on the earth, and brings some 
of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, 
conquering, and enslaving all the rest . . . 

"This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very 
essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its 
supreme duty and its greatest virtue . . . Thus, to offend, to 
oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's 
fellowman [or woman] is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public 
life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when 
these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for 
the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all 
transformed into duty and virtue. And this virtue, this duty,
are obligatory for each patriotic citizen; everyone if supposed
to exercise them not against foreigners only but against one's
own fellow citizens . . . whenever the welfare of the State
demands it.

"This explains why, since the birth of the State, the world of
politics has always been and continues to be the stage for 
unlimited rascality and brigandage . . . This explains why the 
entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series 
of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, 
of all times and all countries -- statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, 
and warriors -- if judged from the standpoint of simply morality 
and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned 
their sentence to hard labour or to the gallows. There is no 
horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no 
infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or 
shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being 
perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other 
pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so 
terrible: '*for reasons of state.*'" [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
pp. 133-4] 

Governments habitually lie to the people they claim to represent 
in order to justify wars, reductions (if not the destruction) of 
civil liberties and human rights, policies which benefit the few 
over the many, and other crimes. And if its subjects protest, 
the state will happily use whatever force deemed necessary to 
bring the rebels back in line (labelling such repression "law 
and order"). Such repression includes the use of death squads,
the institutionalisation of torture, collective punishments,
indefinite imprisonment, and other horrors at the worse extremes.

Little wonder the state usually spends so much time ensuring the 
(mis)education of its population -- only by obscuring (when not 
hiding) its actual practises can it ensure the allegiance of 
those subject to it. The history of the state could be viewed
as nothing more than the attempts of its subjects to control it
and bind it to the standards people apply to themselves.

Such behaviour is not surprising, given that Anarchists see the 
state, with its vast scope and control of deadly force, as the 
"ultimate" hierarchical structure, suffering from all the negative 
characteristics associated with authority described in the last 
section. "Any logical and straightforward theory of the State," 
argued Bakunin, "is essentially founded upon the principle of 
*authority*, that is the eminently theological, metaphysical, 
and political idea that the masses, *always* incapable of 
governing themselves, must at all times submit to the beneficent 
yoke of a wisdom and a justice imposed upon them, in some way or 
other, from above." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 142] Such a 
system of authority cannot help being centralised, hierarchical
and bureaucratic in nature. And because of its centralised, 
hierarchical, and bureaucratic nature, the state becomes a 
great weight over society, restricting its growth and 
development and making popular control impossible. As 
Bakunin put it:

"the so-called general interests of society supposedly represented by the
State . . . [are] in reality . . . the general and permanent negation of 
the positive interests of the regions, communes, and associations, and a 
vast number of individuals subordinated to the State . . . [in which] 
all the best aspirations, all the living forces of a country, are 
sanctimoniously immolated and interred." [_The Political Philosophy 
of Bakunin_, p. 207]

That is by no means the end of it. As well as its obvious hierarchical
form, anarchists object to the state for another, equally important,
reason. This is its role as a defender of the economically dominant 
class in society against the rest of it (i.e. from the working class). 
This means, under the current system, the capitalists "need the state
to legalise their methods of robbery, to protect the capitalist 
system." [Berkman, _What is Anarchism?_, p. 16] The state, as we
discuss in section B.2.1, is the defender of private property (see 
section B.3 for a discussion of what anarchists mean by that term 
and how it differs from individual possessions). 

This means that in capitalist states the mechanisms of state domination 
are controlled by and for a corporate elite (and hence the large 
corporations are often considered to belong to a wider "state-complex"). 
Indeed, as we discuss in more depth in section F.8, the "State has been, 
and still is, the main pillar and the creator, direct and indirect, of 
Capitalism and its powers over the masses." [Kropotkin, _Evolution and 
Environment_, p. 97] Section B.2.3 indicates how this is domination is
achieved in a representative democracy.

However this does not mean anarchists think that the state is purely 
an instrument of economic class rule. As Malatesta argued, while "a 
special class (government) which, provided with the necessary means 
of repression, exists to legalise and protect the owning class from 
the demands of the workers . . . it uses the powers at its disposal 
to create privileges for itself and to subject, if it can, the 
owning class itself as well." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, 
p. 183] Thus the state has interests of its own, distinct from and 
sometimes in opposition to the economic ruling elite. This means 
that both state *and* capitalism needs to be abolished, for the 
former is as much a distinct (and oppressive and exploitative) 
class as the former. This aspects of the state is discussed in 
section B.2.6.

As part of its role as defender of capitalism, the state is involved 
in not only in political domination but also in economic domination.
This domination can take different forms, varying from simply 
maintaining capitalist property rights to actually owning workplaces
and exploiting labour directly. Thus every state intervenes in the 
economy in some manner. While this is usually to favour the economically 
dominant, it can also occur try and mitigate the anti-social nature
of the capitalist market and regulate its worse abuses. We discuss 
this aspect of the state in section B.2.2. 

Needless to say, the characteristics which mark a state did not 
develop by chance. As we discuss in section H.3.7, anarchists 
have an evolutionary perspective on the state. This means that 
it has a hierarchical nature in order to facilitate the execution 
of its role, its function. As sections B.2.4 and B.2.5 indicate, 
the centralisation that marks a state is required to secure elite 
rule and was deliberately and actively created to do so. This 
means that states, by their very nature, are top-down 
institutions which centralise power into a few hands and, as a
consequence, a state "with its traditions, its hierarchy, and its
narrow nationalism" can "not be utilised as an instrument of
emancipation." [Kropotkon, _Evolution and Environment_, p. 78]
It is for this reason that anarchists aim to create a new form
of social organisation and life, a decentralised one based on
decision making from the bottom-up and the elimination of 
hierarchy.

Finally, we must point out that anarchists, while stressing what
states have in common, do recognise that some forms of the state
are better than others. Democracies, for example, tend to be less
oppressive than dictatorships or monarchies. As such it would be
false to conclude that anarchists, "in criticising the democratic
government we thereby show our preference for the monarchy. We 
are firmly convinced that the most imperfect republic is a 
thousand times better than the most enlightened monarchy." 
[Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 144] However, this does not
change the nature or role of the state. Indeed, what liberties we 
have are *not* dependent on the goodwill of the state but rather 
the result of people standing against it and exercising their 
autonomy. Left to itself, the state would soon turn the liberties 
and rights it says it defends into dead-laws -- things that look 
good in print but not practised in real life.

So in the rest of this section we will discuss the state, its 
role, its impact on a society's freedom and who benefits from its 
existence. Kropotkin's classic essay, _The State: It's Historic 
Role_ is recommended for further reading on this subject. Harold
Barclay's _The State_ is a good overview of the origins of the
state, how it has changed over the millenniums and the nature of
the modern state.

B.2.1 What is main function of the state?

The main function of the state is to guarantee the existing social
relationships and their sources within a given society through
centralised power and a monopoly of violence. To use Malatesta's 
words, the state is basically "the property owners' *gendarme.*" 
This is because there are "two ways of oppressing men [and women]:
either directly by brute force, by physical violence; or indirectly by
denying them the means of life and thus reducing them to a state of 
surrender." The owning class, "gradually concentrating in their hands 
the means of production, the real sources of life, agriculture, industry,
barter, etc., end up establishing their own power which, by reason of
the superiority of its means . . . always ends by more or less openly
subjecting the political power, which is the government, and making it
into its own *gendarme.*" [Op. Cit., p. 23, p. 21 and p. 22]

The state, therefore, is "the political expression of the economic 
structure" of society and, therefore, "the representative of the 
people who own or control the wealth of the community and the 
oppressor of the people who do the work which creates the wealth." 
[Nicholas Walter, _About Anarchism_, p. 37] It is therefore no 
exaggeration to say that the state is the extractive apparatus of 
society's parasites. 

The state ensures the exploitative privileges of its ruling elite by
protecting certain economic monopolies from which its members derive 
their wealth. The nature of these economic privileges varies over time. 
Under the current system, this means defending capitalist property 
rights (see section B.3.2). This service is referred to as "protecting 
private property" and is said to be one of the two main functions of 
the state, the other being to ensure that individuals are "secure in 
their persons." However, although this second aim is professed, in 
reality most state laws and institutions are concerned with the 
protection of property (for the anarchist definition of "property" 
see section B.3.1.). 

From this we may infer that references to the "security of persons,"
"crime prevention," etc., are mostly rationalisations of the state's
existence and smokescreens for its perpetuation of elite power and
privileges. This does not mean that the state does not address these
issues. Of course it does, but, to quote Kropotkin, any "laws developed
from the nucleus of customs useful to human communities . . . have
been turned to account by rulers to sanctify their own domination."
of the people, and maintained only by the fear of punishment." 
[_Anarchism_, p. 215]

Simply put, if the state "presented nothing but a collection of 
prescriptions serviceable to rulers, it would find some difficulty in
insuring acceptance and obedience" and so the law reflects customs
"essential to the very being of society" but these are "cleverly 
intermingled with usages imposed by the ruling caste and both claim
equal respect from the crowd." Thus the state's laws have a "two-fold 
character." While its "origin is the desire of the ruling class to
give permanence to customs imposed by themselves for their own 
advantage" it also passes into law "customs useful to society, 
customs which have no need of law to insure respect" -- unlike 
those "other customs useful only to rulers, injurious to the mass 
of the people, and maintained only by the fear of punishment." 
[Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 205-6] To use an obvious example, we 
find the state using the defence of an individual's possessions 
as the rationale for imposing capitalist private property rights 
upon the general public and, consequently, defending the elite 
and the source of its wealth and power against those subject to
it.

Moreover, even though the state does take a secondary interest
in protecting the security of persons (particularly elite persons), 
the vast majority of crimes against persons are motivated by poverty 
and alienation due to state-supported exploitation and also by the
desensitisation to violence created by the state's own violent methods 
of protecting private property. In other words, the state rationalises 
its existence by pointing to the social evils it itself helps to create 
(either directly or indirectly). Hence, anarchists maintain that without 
the state and the crime-engendering conditions to which it gives rise, 
it would be possible for decentralised, voluntary community associations 
to deal compassionately (not punitively) with the few incorrigibly 
violent people who might remain (see section I.5.8). 

Anarchists think it is pretty clear what the real role of the modern
state is. It represents the essential coercive mechanisms by which 
capitalism and the authority relations associated with private 
property are sustained. The protection of property is fundamentally the 
means of assuring the social domination of owners over non-owners, both 
in society as a whole and in the particular case of a specific boss 
over a specific group of workers. Class domination is the authority 
of property owners over those who use that property and it is the 
primary function of the state to uphold that domination (and the 
social relationships that generate it). In Kropotkin's words, "the 
rich perfectly well know that if the machinery of the State ceased 
to protect them, their power over the labouring classes would be gone
immediately." [_Evolution and Environment_, p. 98] Protecting private 
property and upholding class domination are the same thing.

The historian Charles Beard makes a similar point: 

"Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond mere repression 
of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the 
property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose 
rights are thus to be protected must perforce obtain from the government 
such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the 
continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control 
the organs of government." ["An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution," 
quoted by Howard Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 89]

This role of the state -- to protect capitalism and the property, 
power and authority of the property owner -- was also noticed by 
Adam Smith: 

"[T]he inequality of fortune . . . introduces among men a degree 
of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist 
before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government 
which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation . . . 
[and] to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The 
rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order 
of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own 
advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior 
wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of 
superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of 
theirs . . .  [T]he maintenance of their lesser authority depends 
upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination 
to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination 
to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves 
interested to defend the property and to support the authority of 
their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend 
their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so 
far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality 
instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those 
who have some property against those who have none at all." [_The 
Wealth of Nations_, book 5, pp. 412-3]

This is reflected in both the theory and history of the modern state.
Theorists of the liberal state like John Locke had no qualms about
developing a theory of the state which placed the defence of private
property at its heart. This perspective was reflected in the American
Revolution. For example, there is the words of John Jay (the first
chief justice of the Supreme Court), namely that "the people who 
own the country ought to govern it." [quoted by Noam Chomksy, 
_Understanding Power_, p. 315] This was the maxim of the Founding 
Fathers of American "democracy" and it has continued ever since. 

So, in a nutshell, the state is the means by which the ruling class 
rules. Hence Bakunin:

"The State is authority, domination, and force, organised by the 
property-owning and so-called enlightened classes against the masses
. . . the State's domination . . . [ensures] that of the privileged 
classes who it solely represents." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 140]

Under the current system, this means that the state "constitutes the
chief bulwark of capital" because of its "centralisation, law (always 
written by a minority in the interest of that minority), and courts of 
justice (established mainly for the defence of authority and capital)."
Thus it is "the mission of all governments . . . is to protect and 
maintain by force the . . . privileges of the possessing classes." 
Consequently, while "[i]n the struggle between the individual and the 
State, anarchism . . . takes the side of the individual as against the 
State, of society against the authority which oppresses it," anarchists 
are well aware that the state does not exist above society, independent
of the classes which make it up. [Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, pp. 149-50,
p. 214 and pp. 192-3]

Consequently anarchists reject the idea that the role of the state
is simply to represent the interests of the people or "the nation."
For "democracy is an empty pretence to the extent that production,
finance and commerce -- and along with them, the political processes
of the society as well -- are under control of 'concentrations of
private power.' The 'national interest' as articulated by those who
dominate the . . . societies will be their special interests. Under
these circumstances, talk of 'national interest' can only contribute
to mystification and oppression." [Noam Chomsky, _Radical Priorities_, 
p. 52] As we discuss in section D.6, nationalism always reflects the
interests of the elite, not those who make up a nation and, 
consequently, anarchists reject the notion as nothing more than a 
con (i.e. the use of affection of where you live to further ruling 
class aims and power). 

Indeed, part of the state's role as defender of the ruling elite is 
to do so internationally, defending "national" (i.e. elite) interests 
against the elites of other nations. Thus we find that at the IMF and
World Bank, nations are represented by ministers who are "closely 
aligned with particular constituents *within* their countries. The
trade ministers reflect the concerns of the business community"
while the "finance ministers and central bank governors are closely
tied to financial community; they come from financial firms, and
after their period in service, that is where they return . . . These
individuals see the world through the eyes of the financial community."
Unsurprisingly, the "decisions of any institution naturally reflect
the perspectives and interests of those who make the decisions" and
so the "policies of the international economic institutions are all
too often closely aligned with the commercial and financial interests
of those in the advanced industrial countries." [Joseph Stiglitz, 
_Globalisation and its Discontents_, pp. 19-20]

This, it must be stressed, does not change in the so-called 
democratic state. Here, however, the primary function of the state 
is disguised by the "democratic" facade of the representative electoral
system, through which it is made to appear that the people rule
themselves. Thus Bakunin writes that the modern state "unites in itself
the two conditions necessary for the prosperity of the capitalistic
economy: State centralisation and the actual subjection of . . . the
people . . . to the minority allegedly representing it but actually
governing it." [Op. Cit., p. 210] How this is achieved is discussed 
in section B.2.3.

B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions?

Yes, it does. While, as discussed in the last section, 
the state is an instrument to maintain class rule this does 
not mean that it is limited to just defending the social 
relationships in a society and the economic and political 
sources of those relationships. No state has ever left its 
activities at that bare minimum. As well as defending the rich, 
their property and the specific forms of property rights they 
favoured, the state has numerous other subsidiary functions. 

What these are has varied considerably over time and space and, 
consequently, it would be impossible to list them all. However, 
*why* it does is more straight forward. We can generalise two 
main forms of subsidiary functions of the state. The first one 
is to boost the interests of the ruling elite either nationally 
or internationally beyond just defending their property. The 
second is to protect society against the negative effects of 
the capitalist market. We will discuss each in turn and, for 
simplicity and relevance, we will concentrate on capitalism
(see also section D.1).

The first main subsidiary function of the state is when it 
intervenes in society to help the capitalist class in some way.
This can take obvious forms of intervention, such as subsidies, 
tax breaks, non-bid government contracts, protective tariffs to old,
inefficient, industries, giving actual monopolies to certain firms 
or individuals, bailouts of corporations judged by state bureaucrats 
as too important to let fail, and so on. However, the state 
intervenes far more than that and in more subtle ways. Usually 
it does so to solve problems that arise in the course of capitalist 
development and which cannot, in general, be left to the market (at
least initially). These are designed to benefit the capitalist class as 
a whole rather than just specific individuals, companies or sectors.

These interventions have taken different forms in different times 
and include state funding for industry (e.g. military spending); the 
creation of social infrastructure too expensive for private capital 
to provide (railways, motorways); the funding of research that
companies cannot afford to undertake; protective tariffs to 
protect developing industries from more efficient international 
competition (the key to successful industrialisation as it allows 
capitalists to rip-off consumers, making them rich and increasing 
funds available for investment); giving capitalists preferential 
access to land and other natural resources; providing education to 
the general public that ensures they have the skills and attitude 
required by capitalists and the state (it is no accident that a 
key thing learned in school is how to survive boredom, being in 
a hierarchy and to do what it orders); imperialist ventures to 
create colonies or client states (or protect citizen's capital 
invested abroad) in order to create markets or get access to raw 
materials and cheap labour; government spending to stimulate 
consumer demand in the face of recession and stagnation; maintaining 
a "natural" level of unemployment that can be used to discipline 
the working class, so ensuring they produce more, for less; 
manipulating the interest rate in order to try and reduce the 
effects of the business cycle and undermine workers' gains in 
the class struggle. 

These actions, and others like it, ensures that a key role of the 
state within capitalism "is essentially to socialise risk and cost, 
and to privatise power and profit." Unsurprisingly, "with all the 
talk about minimising the state, in the OECD countries the state 
continues to grow relative to GNP." [Noam Chomsky, _Rogue States_, 
p. 189] Hence David Deleon:

"Above all, the state remains an institution for the 
continuance of dominant socioeconomic relations, whether 
through such agencies as the military, the courts, politics 
or the police . . . Contemporary states have acquired . . . 
less primitive means to reinforce their property systems [than 
state violence -- which is always the means of last, often first, 
resort]. States can regulate, moderate or resolve tensions in 
the economy by preventing the bankruptcies of key corporations, 
manipulating the economy through interest rates, supporting 
hierarchical ideology through tax benefits for churches and 
schools, and other tactics. In essence, it is not a neutral 
institution; it is powerfully for the status quo. The capitalist
state, for example, is virtually a gyroscope centred in capital, 
balancing the system. If one sector of the economy earns a level 
of profit, let us say, that harms the rest of the system -- such 
as oil producers' causing public resentment and increased 
manufacturing costs -- the state may redistribute some of that 
profit through taxation, or offer encouragement to competitors." 
["Anarchism on the origins and functions of the state: some
basic notes", _Reinventing Anarchy_, pp. 71-72] 

In other words, the state acts to protect the long-term interests 
of the capitalist class as a whole (and ensure its own survival) 
by protecting the system. This role can and does clash with the 
interests of particular capitalists or even whole sections of the 
ruling class (see section B.1.6). But this conflict does not change 
the role of the state as the property owners' policeman. Indeed, 
the state can be considered as a means for settling (in a peaceful 
and apparently independent manner) upper-class disputes over what 
to do to keep the system going.

This subsidiary role, it must be stressed, is no accident, It is 
part and parcel capitalism. Indeed, "successful industrial societies 
have consistently relied on departures from market orthodoxies, while 
condemning their victims [at home and abroad] to market discipline."
[Noam Chomsky, _World Orders, Old and New_, p. 113] While such state 
intervention grew greatly after the Second World War, the role of the 
state as active promoter of the capitalist class rather than just its 
passive defender as implied in capitalist ideology (i.e. as defender 
of property) has always been a feature of the system. As Kropotkin 
put it:

"every State reduces the peasants and the industrial workers to a 
life of misery, by means of taxes, and through the monopolies it 
creates in favour of the landlords, the cotton lords, the railway 
magnates, the publicans, and the like . . . we need only to look 
round, to see how everywhere in Europe and America the States are 
constituting monopolies in favour of capitalists at home, and still 
more in conquered lands [which are part of their empires]." 
[_Evolution and Environment_, p. 97] 

By "monopolies," it should be noted, Kropotkin meant general 
privileges and benefits rather than giving a certain firm total 
control over a market. This continues to this day by such means as,
for example, privatising industries but providing them with state 
subsidies or by (mis-labelled) "free trade" agreements which impose
protectionist measures such as intellectual property rights on the
world market. 

All this means that capitalism has rarely relied on purely economic 
power to keep the capitalists in their social position of dominance 
(either nationally, vis--vis the working class, or internationally, 
vis--vis competing foreign elites). While a "free market" capitalist 
regime in which the state reduces its intervention to simply protecting
capitalist property rights has been approximated on a few occasions, 
this is not the standard state of the system -- direct force, i.e. 
state action, almost always supplements it. 

This is most obviously the case during the birth of capitalist 
production. Then the bourgeoisie wants and uses the power of the 
state to "regulate" wages (i.e. to keep them down to such levels 
as to maximise profits and force people attend work regularly), to 
lengthen the working day and to keep the labourer dependent on wage 
labour as their own means of income (by such means as enclosing land, 
enforcing property rights on unoccupied land, and so forth). As 
capitalism is not and has never been a "natural" development in 
society, it is not surprising that more and more state intervention 
is required to keep it going (and if even this was not the case,
if force was essential to creating the system in the first place, 
the fact that it latter can survive without further direct 
intervention does not make the system any less statist). As such,
"regulation" and other forms of state intervention continue to 
be used in order to skew the market in favour of the rich and 
so force working people to sell their labour on the bosses terms. 

This form of state intervention is designed to prevent those 
greater evils which might threaten the efficiency of a capitalist
economy or the social and economic position of the bosses. It is
designed not to provide positive benefits for those subject to the
elite (although this may be a side-effect). Which brings us to the 
other kind of state intervention, the attempts by society, by means 
of the state, to protect itself against the eroding effects of the 
capitalist market system. 

Capitalism is an inherently anti-social system. By trying to treat 
labour (people) and land (the environment) as commodities, it has 
to break down communities and weaken eco-systems. This cannot but
harm those subject to it and, as a consequence, this leads to pressure 
on government to intervene to mitigate the most damaging effects of 
unrestrained capitalism. Therefore, on one side there is the historical 
movement of the market, a movement that has not inherent limit and that 
therefore threatens society's very existence. On the other there is 
society's natural propensity to defend itself, and therefore to create 
institutions for its protection. Combine this with a desire for justice
on behalf of the oppressed along with opposition to the worse inequalities 
and abuses of power and wealth and we have the potential for the state to
act to combat the worse excesses of the system in order to keep the
system as a whole going. After all, the government "cannot want society 
to break up, for it would mean that it and the dominant class would be 
deprived of the sources of exploitation." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 25]

Needless to say, the thrust for any system of social protection 
usually comes from below, from the people most directly affected by 
the negative effects of capitalism. In the face of mass protests the 
state may be used to grant concessions to the working class in cases 
where not doing so would threaten the integrity of the system as a whole.
Thus, social struggle is the dynamic for understanding many, if not
all, of the subsidiary functions acquired by the state over the years
(this applies to pro-capitalist functions as these are usually driven
by the need to bolster the profits and power of capitalists at the 
expense of the working class).

State legislation to set the length of the working day is an obvious
example this. In the early period of capitalist development, the 
economic position of the capitalists was secure and, consequently,
the state happily ignored the lengthening working day, thus allowing 
capitalists to appropriate more surplus value from workers and increase 
the rate of profit without interference. Whatever protests erupted 
were handled by troops. Later, however, after workers began to organise
on a wider and wider scale, reducing the length of the working day became 
a key demand around which revolutionary socialist fervour was developing. 
In order to defuse this threat (and socialist revolution is the 
worst-case scenario for the capitalist), the state passed legislation 
to reduce the length of the working day. 

Initially, the state was functioning purely as the protector of the 
capitalist class, using its powers simply to defend the property of
the few against the many who used it (i.e. repressing the labour 
movement to allow the capitalists to do as they liked). In the second
period, the state was granting concessions to the working class 
to eliminate a threat to the integrity of the system as a whole.
Needless to say, once workers' struggle calmed down and their 
bargaining position reduced by the normal workings of market (see
section B.4.3), the legislation restricting the working day was
happily ignored and became "dead laws." 

This suggests that there is a continuing tension and conflict between 
the efforts to establish, maintain, and spread the "free market" and 
the efforts to protect people and society from the consequences of its 
workings. Who wins this conflict depends on the relative strength of 
those involved (as does the actual reforms agreed to). Ultimately, 
what the state concedes, it can also take back. Thus the rise and fall 
of the welfare state -- granted to stop more revolutionary change (see 
section D.1.3), it did not fundamentally challenge the existence of wage 
labour and was useful as a means of regulating capitalism but was 
"reformed" (i.e. made worse, rather than better) when it conflicted 
with the needs of the capitalist economy and the ruling elite felt 
strong enough to do so.

Of course, this form of state intervention does not change the nature nor
role of the state as an instrument of minority power. Indeed, that nature
cannot help but shape how the state tries to implement social protection
and so if the state assumes functions it does so as much in the immediate 
interest of the capitalist class as in the interest of society in general. 
Even where it takes action under pressure from the general population or 
to try and mend the harm done by the capitalist market, its class and 
hierarchical character twists the results in ways useful primarily to 
the capitalist class or itself. This can be seen from how labour legislation 
is applied, for example. Thus even the "good" functions of the state are 
penetrated with and dominated by the state's hierarchical nature. As 
Malatesta forcefully put it: 

"The basic function of government . . . is always that of oppressing 
and exploiting the masses, of defending the oppressors and the exploiters 
. . . It is true that to these basic functions . . . other functions have 
been added in the course of history . . . hardly ever has a government 
existed . . . which did not combine with its oppressive and plundering 
activities others which were useful . . . to social life. But this does 
not detract from the fact that government is by nature oppressive . . . 
and that it is in origin and by its attitude, inevitably inclined to 
defend and strengthen the dominant class; indeed it confirms and 
aggravates the position . . . [I]t is enough to understand how and why 
it carries out these functions to find the practical evidence that 
whatever governments do is always motivated by the desire to dominate, 
and is always geared to defending, extending and perpetuating its 
privileges and those of the class of which it is both the representative 
and defender." [Op. Cit., pp. 23-4]

This does not mean that these reforms should be abolished (the alternative 
is often worse, as neo-liberalism shows), it simply recognises that the 
state is not a neutral body and cannot be expected to act as if it were.
Which, ironically, indicates another aspect of social protection reforms
within capitalism: they make for good PR. By appearing to care for the 
interests of those harmed by capitalism, the state can obscure it real 
nature:

"A government cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true 
nature behind a pretence of general usefulness; it cannot impose respect 
for the lives of the privileged if it does not appear to demand respect 
for all human life; it cannot impose acceptance of the privileges of the 
few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of the rights of all." 
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., pp. 24]

Obviously, being an instrument of the ruling elite, the state can hardly 
be relied upon to control the system which that elite run. As we discuss 
in the next section, even in a democracy the state is run and controlled 
by the wealthy making it unlikely that pro-people legislation will be 
introduced or enforced without substantial popular pressure. That is why
anarchists favour direct action and extra-parliamentary organising (see 
section J.2 and J.5 for details). Ultimately, even basic civil liberties
and rights are the product of direct action, of "mass movements among the
people" to "wrest these rights from the ruling classes, who would never
have consented to them voluntarily." [Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 75]
 Equally obviously, the ruling elite and its defenders hate any legislation 
it does not favour -- while, of course, remaining silent on its own use of
the state. As Benjamin Tucker pointed out about the "free market" capitalist 
Herbert Spencer, "amid his multitudinous illustrations . . . of the evils 
of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed ostensibly at 
least to protect labour, alleviating suffering, or promote the people's 
welfare. . . But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly 
and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege 
and sustaining monopoly." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 45] Such 
hypocrisy is staggering, but all too common in the ranks of supporters 
of "free market" capitalism. 

Finally, it must be stressed that none of these subsidiary functions implies 
that capitalism can be changed through a series of piecemeal reforms into 
a benevolent system that primarily serves working class interests. To the 
contrary, these functions grow out of, and supplement, the basic role of 
the state as the protector of capitalist property and the social relations 
they generate -- i.e. the foundation of the capitalist's ability to exploit. 
Therefore reforms may modify the functioning of capitalism but they can 
never threaten its basis. 

In summary, while the level and nature of statist intervention on behalf 
of the employing classes may vary, it is always there. No matter what 
activity it conducts beyond its primary function of protecting private 
property, what subsidiary functions it takes on, the state always operates 
as an instrument of the ruling class. This applies even to those subsidiary 
functions which have been imposed on the state by the general public --
even the most popular reform will be twisted to benefit the state or
capital, if at all possible. This is not to dismiss all attempts at reform
as irrelevant, it simply means recognising that we, the oppressed, need to
rely on our own strength and organisations to improve our circumstances.

B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the state? 

In some systems, it is obvious how economic dominant minorities control
the state. In feudalism, for example, the land was owned by the feudal
lords who exploited the peasantry directly. Economic and political power
were merged into the same set of hands, the landlords. Absolutism saw 
the monarch bring the feudal lords under his power and the relative
decentralised nature of feudalism was replaced by a centralised state.

It was this centralised state system which the raising bourgeoisie took 
as the model for their state. The King was replaced by a Parliament, which
was initially elected on a limited suffrage. In this initial form of 
capitalist state, it is (again) obvious how the elite maintain control 
of the state machine. As the vote was based on having a minimum amount
of property, the poor were effectively barred from having any (official) 
say in what the government did. This exclusion was theorised by 
philosophers like John Locke -- the working masses were considered to 
be an object of state policy rather than part of the body of people 
(property owners) who nominated the government. In this perspective 
the state was like a joint-stock company. The owning class were the 
share-holders who nominated the broad of directors and the mass of 
the population were the workers who had no say in determining the
management personnel and were expected to follow orders.

As would be expected, this system was mightily disliked by the 
majority who were subjected to it. Such a "classical liberal" regime 
was rule by an alien, despotic power, lacking popular legitimacy, and 
utterly unaccountable to the general population. It is quite evident 
that a government elected on a limited franchise could not be trusted 
to treat those who owned no real property with equal consideration. 
It was predictable that the ruling elite would use the state they 
controlled to further their own interests and to weaken potential 
resistance to their social, economic and political power. Which is 
precisely what they did do, while masking their power under the guise 
of "good governance" and "liberty." Moreover, limited suffrage, like 
absolutism, was considered an affront to liberty and individual dignity
by many of those subject to it.

Hence the call for universal suffrage and opposition to property 
qualifications for the franchise. For many radicals (including Marx 
and Engels) such a system would mean that the working classes would
hold "political power" and, consequently, be in a position to end the 
class system once and for all. Anarchists were not convinced, arguing 
that "universal suffrage, considered in itself and applied in a society
based on economic and social inequality, will be nothing but a swindle
and snare for the people" and "the surest way to consolidate under the
mantle of liberalism and justice the permanent domination of the people
by the owning classes, to the detriment of popular liberty." Consequently,
anarchists denied that it "could be used by the people for the conquest 
of economic and social equality. It must always and necessarily be an
instrument hostile to the people, one which supports the *de facto*
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." [Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p. 224]

Due to popular mass movements form below, the vote was won by the 
male working classes and, at a later stage, women. While the elite
fought long and hard to retain their privileged position they were
defeated. Sadly, the history of universal suffrage proven the 
anarchists right. Even allegedly "democratic" capitalist states are 
in effect dictatorships of the propertariat. The political history 
of modern times can be summarised by the rise of capitalist power, 
the rise, due to popular movements, of (representative) democracy 
and the continued success of the former to undermine and control 
the latter. 

This is achieved by three main processes which combine to effectively 
deter democracy. These are the wealth barrier, the bureaucracy barrier 
and, lastly, the capital barrier. Each will be discussed in turn and 
all ensure that "representative democracy" remains an "organ of 
capitalist domination." [Kropotkin, _Words of a Rebel_, p. 127]

The wealth barrier is the most obvious. It takes money to run for office.
In 1976, the total spent on the US Presidential election was $66.9 million. 
In 1984, it was $103.6 million and in 1996 it was $239.9 million. At the 
dawn of the 21st century, these figures had increased yet again. 2000 
saw $343.1 spent and 2004, $717.9 million. Most of this money was spent 
by the two main candidates. In 2000, Republican George Bush spent a 
massive $185,921,855 while his Democratic rival Al Gore spent only 
$120,031,205. Four years later, Bush spent $345,259,155 while John 
Kerry managed a mere $310,033,347. 

Other election campaigns are also enormously expensive. In 2000, the
average winning candidate for a seat in the US House of Representatives
spent $816,000 while the average willing senator spent $7 million. Even
local races require significant amounts of fundraising. One candidate
for the Illinois House raised over $650,000 while another candidate for
the Illinois Supreme Court raised $737,000. In the UK, similarly 
prohibitive amounts were spent. In the 2001 general election the 
Labour Party spent a total of 10,945,119, the Tories 12,751,813 
and the Liberal Democrats (who came a distant third) just 1,361,377.

To get this sort of money, wealthy contributors need to be found
and wooed, in other words promised that that their interests will 
be actively looked after. While, in theory, it is possible to raise 
large sums from small contributions in practice this is difficult.
To raise $1 million you need to either convince 50 millionaires to
give you $20,000 or 20,000 people to fork out $50. Given that for 
the elite $20,000 is pocket money, it is hardly surprising that 
politicians aim for winning over the few, not the many. Similarly 
with corporations and big business. It is far easier and more 
efficient in time and energy to concentrate on the wealthy few 
(whether individuals or companies). 

It is obvious: whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And in 
capitalism, this means the wealthy and business. In the US corporate 
campaign donations and policy paybacks have reached unprecedented 
proportions. The vast majority of large campaign donations are, not 
surprisingly, from corporations. Most of the wealthy individuals who 
give large donations to the candidates are CEOs and corporate board 
members. And, just to be sure, many companies give to more than one 
party. 

Unsurprisingly, corporations and the rich expect their investments 
to get a return. This can be seen from George W. Bush's administration. 
His election campaigns were beholden to the energy industry (which has 
backed him since the beginning of his career as Governor of Texas). The 
disgraced corporation Enron (and its CEO Kenneth Lay) were among Bush's 
largest contributors in 2000. Once in power, Bush backed numerous policies 
favourable to that industry (such as rolling back environmental regulation 
on a national level as he had done in Texas). His supporters in Wall Street 
were not surprised that Bush tried to privatise Social Security. Nor were 
the credit card companies when the Republicans tighten the noose on bankrupt 
people in 2005. By funding Bush, these corporations ensured that the 
government furthered their interests rather than the people who voted
in the election.

This means that as a "consequence of the distribution of resources 
and decision-making power in the society at large . . . the political 
class and the cultural managers typically associate themselves with 
the sectors that dominate the private economy; they are either drawn 
directly from those sectors or expect to join them." [Chomsky, _Necessary
Illusions_, p. 23] This can be seen from George W. Bush's quip at an 
elite fund-raising gala during the 2000 Presidential election: "This 
is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people 
call you the elites; I call you my base." Unsurprisingly: 

"In the real world, state policy is largely determined by those
groups that command resources, ultimately by virtue of their ownership
and management of the private economy or their status as wealthy 
professionals. The major decision-making positions in the Executive
branch of the government are typically filled by representatives of
major corporations, banks and investment firms, a few law firms that
cater primarily to corporate interests and thus represent the broad
interests of owners and managers rather than some parochial interest
. . . The Legislative branch is more varied, but overwhelmingly, it
is drawn from the business and professional classes." [Chomsky, _On
Power and Ideology_, pp. 116-7]

That is not the only tie between politics and business. Many politicians also 
have directorships in companies, interests in companies, shares, land and 
other forms of property income and so forth. Thus they are less like the 
majority of constituents they claim to represent and more like the wealthy 
few. Combine these outside earnings with a high salary (in the UK, MP's are 
paid more than twice the national average) and politicians can be among the 
richest 1% of the population. Thus not only do we have a sharing of common 
interests the elite, the politicians are part of it. As such, they can hardly 
be said to be representative of the general public and are in a position of 
having a vested interest in legislation on property being voted on.

Some defend these second jobs and outside investments by saying that it keeps 
them in touch with the outside world and, consequently, makes them better 
politicians. That such an argument is spurious can be seen from the fact that 
such outside interests never involve working in McDonald's flipping burgers 
or working on an assembly line. For some reason, no politician seeks to get 
a feeling for what life is like for the average person. Yet, in a sense, this 
argument *does* have a point. Such jobs and income do keep politicians in 
touch with the world of the elite rather than that of the masses and, as the 
task of the state is to protect elite interests, it cannot be denied that 
this sharing of interests and income with the elite can only aid that task!

Then there is the sad process by which politicians, once they leave politics, 
get jobs in the corporate hierarchy (particularly with the very companies they 
had previously claimed to regulate on behalf of the public). This was termed 
"the revolving door." Incredibly, this has changed for the worse. Now the 
highest of government officials arrive directly from the executive offices 
of powerful corporations. Lobbyists are appointed to the jobs whose occupants 
they once vied to influence. Those who regulate and those supposed to be 
regulated have become almost indistinguishable.

Thus politicians and capitalists go hand in hand. Wealth selects them, 
funds them and gives them jobs and income when in office. Finally, once 
they finally leave politics, they are often given directorships and other 
jobs in the business world. Little wonder, then, that the capitalist class 
maintains control of the state.

That is not all. The wealth barrier operates indirectly to. This takes 
many forms. The most obvious is in the ability of  corporations and the 
elite to lobby politicians. In the US, there is the pervasive power of 
Washington's army of 24,000 registered lobbyists -- and the influence of 
the corporate interests they represent. These lobbyists, whose job it
is to convince politicians to vote in certain ways to further the 
interests of their corporate clients help shape the political agenda
even further toward business interests than it already is. This Lobby
industry is immense -- and exclusively for big business and the elite.
Wealth ensures that the equal opportunity to garner resources to
share a perspective and influence the political progress is monopolised
by the few: "where are the desperately needed countervailing lobbies
to represent the interests of average citizens? Where are the millions
of dollars acting in *their* interests? Alas, they are notably absent."
[Joel Bakan, _The Corporation_, p. 107]

However, it cannot be denied that it is up to the general population 
to vote for politicians. This is when the indirect impact of wealth 
kicks in, namely the role of the media and the Public Relations (PR) 
industry. As we discuss in section D.3, the modern media is dominated
by big business and, unsurprisingly, reflects their interests. This 
means that the media has an important impact on how voters see parties 
and specific politicians and candidates. A radical party will, at best, 
be ignored by the capitalist press or, at worse, subject to smears and
attacks. This will have a corresponding negative impact on their election
prospects and will involve the affected party having to invest substantially 
more time, energy and resources in countering the negative media coverage.
The PR industry has a similar effect, although that has the advantage of
not having to bother with appearing to look factual or unbiased. Add to
this the impact of elite and corporation funded "think tanks" and the 
political system is fatally skewed in favour of the capitalist class
(also see section D.2).

In a nutshell: 

"The business class dominates government through its ability to fund 
political campaigns, purchase high priced lobbyists and reward former 
officials with lucrative jobs . . . [Politicians] have become wholly 
dependent upon the same corporate dollars to pay for a new professional 
class of PR consultants, marketeers and social scientists who manage 
and promote causes and candidates in essentially the same manner that 
advertising campaigns sell cars, fashions, drugs and other wares." 
[John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, _Toxic Sludge is Good for You_, 
p. 78]

That is the first barrier, the direct and indirect impact of wealth.
This, in itself, is a powerful barrier to deter democracy and, as a
consequence, it is usually sufficient in itself. Yet sometimes people 
see through the media distortions and vote for reformist, even radical, 
candidates. As we discuss in section J.2.6, anarchists argue that the 
net effect of running for office is a general *de*-radicalising of the 
party involved. Revolutionary parties become reformist, reformist 
parties end up maintaining capitalism and introducing polities the 
opposite of which they had promised. So while it is unlikely that a 
radical party could get elected and remain radical in the process, 
it is possible. If such a party did get into office, the remaining 
two barriers kicks in: the bureaucracy barrier and the capital barrier.

The existence of a state bureaucracy is a key feature in ensuring that 
the state remains the ruling class's "policeman" and will be discussed 
in greater detail in section J.2.2 (Why do anarchists reject voting as 
a means for change?). Suffice to say, the politicians who are elected
to office are at a disadvantage as regards the state bureaucracy. The
latter is a permanent concentration of power while the former come and
go. Consequently, they are in a position to tame any rebel government 
by means of bureaucratic inertia, distorting and hiding necessary 
information and pushing its own agenda onto the politicians who are
in theory their bosses but in reality dependent on the bureaucracy.
And, needless to say, if all else fails the state bureaucracy can play 
its final hand: the military coup.

This threat has been applied in many countries, most obviously in the 
developing world (with the aid of Western, usually US, imperialism). 
The coups in Iran (1953) and Chile (1973) are just two examples of 
this process. Yet the so-called developed world is not immune to it. 
The rise of fascism in Italy, Germany, Portugal and Spain can be 
considered as variations of a military coup (particularly the last 
one where fascism was imposed by the military). Wealthy business men 
funded para-military forces to break the back of the labour movement, 
forces formed by ex-military people. Even the New Deal in America
was threatened by such a coup. [Joel Bakan, Op. Cit., pp. 86-95]
While such regimes do protect the interests of capital and are, 
consequently, backed by it, they do hold problems for capitalism. 
This is because, as with the Absolutism which fostered capitalism 
in the first place, this kind of government can get ideas above its 
station This means that a military coup will only be used when the 
last barrier, the capital barrier, is used and fails. 

The capital barrier is obviously related to the wealth barrier insofar
as it relates to the power that great wealth produces. However, it is
different in how it is applied. The wealth barrier restricts who gets 
into office, the capital barrier controls whoever does so. The capital
barrier, in other words, are the economic forces that can be brought
to bear on any government which is acting in ways disliked of by the
capitalist class. 

We see their power implied when the news report that changes in 
government, policies and law have been "welcomed by the markets." 
As the richest 1% of households in America (about 2 million adults) 
owned 35% of the stock owned by individuals in 1992 -- with the top 
10% owning over 81% -- we can see that the "opinion" of the markets 
actually means the power of the richest 1-5% of a countries population 
(and their finance experts), power derived from their control over 
investment and production. Given that the bottom 90% of the US 
population has a smaller share (23%) of all kinds of investable 
capital that the richest 1/2% (who own 29%), with stock ownership 
being even more concentrated (the top 5% holding 95% of all shares), 
its obvious why Doug Henwood argues that stock markets are "a way 
for the very rich as a class to own an economy's productive capital 
stock as a whole," are a source of "political power" and a way to 
have influence over government policy. [_Wall Street: Class Racket_]

The mechanism is simple enough. The ability of capital to disinvest 
(capital flight) and otherwise adversely impact the economy is a 
powerful weapon to keep the state as its servant. The companies and
the elite can invest at home or abroad, speculate in currency markets
and so forth. If a significant number of investors or corporations
lose confidence in a government they will simply stop investing at 
home and move their funds abroad. At home, the general population
feel the results as demand drops, layoffs increase and recession 
kicks in. As Noam Chomsky notes:

"In capitalist democracy, the interests that must be satisfied are 
those of capitalists; otherwise, there is no investment, no production, 
no work, no resources to be devoted, however marginally, to the needs 
of the general population." [_Turning the Tide_, p. 233] 

This ensures the elite control of government as government policies which
private power finds unwelcome will quickly be reversed. The power which
"business confidence" has over the political system ensures that democracy
is subservient to big business. As summarised by Malatesta: 

"Even with universal suffrage -- we could well say even more so with 
universal suffrage -- the government remained the bourgeoisie's servant 
and *gendarme.* For were it to be otherwise with the government hinting 
that it might take up a hostile attitude, or that democracy could ever be
anything but a pretence to deceive the people, the bourgeoisie, feeling 
its interests threatened, would by quick to react, and would use all the 
influence and force at its disposal, by reason of its wealth, to recall 
the government to its proper place as the bourgeoisie's *gendarme.*" 
[_Anarchy_, p. 23]

It is due to these barriers that the state remains an instrument of the
capitalist class while being, in theory, a democracy. Thus the state 
machine remains a tool by which the few can enrich themselves at the
expense of the many. This does not mean, of course, that the state is
immune to popular pressure. Far from it. As indicated in the last section,
direct action by the oppressed can and has forced the state to implement
significant reforms. Similarly, the need to defend society against the
negative effects of unregulated capitalism can also force through 
populist measures (particularly when the alternative may be worse than
the allowing the reforms, i.e. revolution). The key is that such changes
are *not* the natural function of the state.

So due to their economic assets, the elites whose incomes are derived 
from them -- namely, finance capitalists, industrial capitalists, and 
landlords -- are able to accumulate vast wealth from those whom they 
exploit. This stratifies society into a hierarchy of economic classes, 
with a huge disparity of wealth between the small property-owning elite 
at the top and the non-property-owning majority at the bottom. Then, 
because it takes enormous wealth to win elections and lobby or bribe
legislators, the propertied elite are able to control the political
process -- and hence the state -- through the "power of the purse." 
In summary:

"No democracy has freed itself from the rule by the well-to-do anymore
than it has freed itself from the division between the ruler and the
ruled . . . at the very least, no democracy has jeopardised the role
of business enterprise. Only the wealthy and well off can afford to
launch viable campaigns for public office and to assume such positions.
Change in government in a democracy is a circulation from one elite
group to another." [Harold Barclay, Op. Cit., p. 47]

In other words, elite control of politics through huge wealth disparities
insures the continuation of such disparities and thus the continuation of
elite control. In this way the crucial political decisions of those at
the top are insulated from significant influence by those at the bottom. 
Finally, it should be noted that these barriers do not arise accidentally.
They flow from the way the state is structured. By effectively disempowering 
the masses and centralising power into the hands of the few which make up 
the government, the very nature of the state ensures that it remains under
elite control. This is why, from the start, the capitalist class has 
favoured centralisation. We discuss this in the next two sections.

(For more on the ruling elite and its relation to the state, see C. 
Wright Mills, _The Power Elite_ [Oxford, 1956]; cf. Ralph Miliband, 
_The State in Capitalist Society_ [Basic Books, 1969] and _Divided 
Societies_ [Oxford, 1989]; G. William Domhoff, _Who Rules America?_ 
[Prentice Hall, 1967]; and _Who Rules America Now? A View for the 
'80s_ [Touchstone, 1983]).

B.2.4 How does state centralisation affect freedom?

It is a common idea that voting every four or so years to elect the 
public face of a highly centralised and bureaucratic machine means 
that ordinary people control the state and, as a consequence, free. 
In reality, this is a false idea. In any system of centralised 
power the general population have little say in what affects them
and, as a result, their freedom is extremely limited.

Obviously, to say that this idea is false does not imply that there 
is no difference between a liberal republic and a fascistic or 
monarchical state. Far from it. The vote is an important victory 
wrested from the powers that be. It is one small step on the road 
to libertarian socialism. That, of course, is not to suggest that 
anarchists think that libertarian socialism is only possible after 
universal suffrage has been won or that it is achievable via it. 
Far from it. It is simply to point out that being able to pick your 
ruler is a step forward from having one imposed upon you. Moreover, 
those considered able to pick their ruler is, logically, also able 
to do without one.

However, while the people are proclaimed to be sovereign in a 
democratic state, in reality they alienate their power and hand 
over control of their affairs to a small minority. Liberty, in 
other words, is reduced to merely the possibility "to pick rulers" 
every four or five years and whose mandate (sic!) is "to legislate 
on any subject, and his decision will become law." [Kropotkin, 
_Words of a Rebel_, p. 122 and p. 123] 

In other words, representative democracy is not "liberty" nor 
"self-government." It is about alienating power to a few people 
who then (mis)rule in your name. To imply it is anything else is 
nonsense. So while we get to pick a politician to govern in our 
name it does not follow that they represent those who voted for 
them in any meaningful sense. As shown time and time again, 
"representative" governments can happily ignore the opinions of 
the majority while, at the same time, verbally praising the 
"democracy" it is abusing (New Labour in the UK during the run 
up to the invasion of Iraq was a classic example of this). Given 
that politicians can do what they like for four or five years once
elected, it is clear that popular control via the ballot box
is hardly effective or even meaningful. 

Indeed, such "democracy" almost always means electing politicians 
who say one thing in opposition and do the opposite once in 
office. Politicians who, at best, ignore their election 
manifesto when it suits them or, at worse, introduce the
exact opposite. It is the kind of "democracy" in which people 
can protest in their hundreds of thousands against a policy only 
to see their "representative" government simply ignore them
(while, at the same time, seeing their representatives bend 
over backward ensuring corporate profits and power while 
speaking platitudes to the electorate and their need to tighten 
their belts). At best it can be said that democratic governments 
tend to be less oppressive than others but it does not follow that 
this equates to liberty.

State centralisation is the means to ensure this situation and 
the debasement of freedom it implies.

All forms of hierarchy, even those in which the top officers are 
elected are marked by authoritarianism and centralism. Power is 
concentrated in the centre (or at the top), which means that society 
becomes "a heap of dust animated from without by a subordinating, 
centralist idea." [P. J. Proudhon, quoted by Martin Buber, _Paths in 
Utopia_, p. 29] For, once elected, top officers can do as they please, 
and, as in all bureaucracies, many important decisions are made by 
non-elected staff. This means that the democratic state is a 
contradiction in terms:

"In the democratic state the election of rulers by alleged majority 
vote is a subterfuge which helps individuals to believe that they 
control the situation. They are selecting persons to do a task for
them and they have no guarantee that it will be carried out as they
desired. They are abdicating to these persons, granting them the right
to impose their own wills by the threat of force. Electing individuals
to public office is like being given a limited choice of your 
oppressors . . . Parliamentary democracies are essentially oligarchies
in which the populace is led to believe that it delegates all its
authority to members of parliament to do as they think best." 
[Harold Barclay, Op. Cit., pp. 46-7]

The nature of centralisation places power into the hands of the few.
Representative democracy is based on this delegation of power, with
voters electing others to govern them. This cannot help but create
a situation in which freedom is endangered -- universal suffrage 
"does not prevent the formation of a body of politicians, privileged 
in fact though not in law, who, devoting themselves exclusively to 
the administration of the nation's public affairs, end by becoming 
a sort of political aristocracy or oligarchy." [Bakunin, _The 
Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 240]

This should not come as a surprise, for to "create a state is to 
institutionalise power in a form of machine that exists *apart*
from the people. It is to professionalise rule and policy making,
to create a distinct interest (be it of bureaucrats, deputies,
commissars, legislators, the military, the police, ad nauseam)
that, however weak or however well-intentioned it may be at first,
eventually takes on a corruptive power of its own." [Murray 
Bookchin, "The Ecological Crisis, Socialism, and the need to
remake society," pp. 1-10, _Society and Nature_, vol. 2,
no. 3, p. 7]

Centralism makes democracy meaningless, as political decision-making is
given over to professional politicians in remote capitals. Lacking local
autonomy, people are isolated from each other (atomised) by having no
political forum where they can come together to discuss, debate, and
decide among themselves the issues they consider important. Elections
are not based on natural, decentralised groupings and thus cease to be
relevant. The individual is just another "voter" in the mass, a political
"constituent" and nothing more. The amorphous basis of modern, statist
elections "aims at nothing less than to abolish political life in towns,
communes and departments, and through this destruction of all municipal
and regional autonomy to arrest the development of universal suffrage."
[Proudhon, quoted by Martin Buber, Op. Cit., p. 29] 

Thus people are disempowered by the very structures that claim to allow 
them to express themselves. To quote Proudhon again, in the centralised 
state "the citizen divests himself of sovereignty, the town and the 
Department and province above it, absorbed by central authority, are 
no longer anything but agencies under direct ministerial control." He 
continues:

"The Consequences soon make themselves felt: the citizen and the
town are deprived of all dignity, the state's depredations multiply,
and the burden on the taxpayer increases in proportion. It is no
longer the government that is made for the people; it is the people
who are made for the government. Power invades everything, dominates
everything, absorbs everything." [_The Principle of Federation_, p. 59]

As intended, as isolated people are no threat to the powers that be. 
This process of marginalisation can be seen from American history, 
for example, when town meetings were replaced by elected bodies, 
with the citizens being placed in passive, spectator roles as mere 
"voters" (see next section). Being an atomised voter is hardly an 
ideal notion of "freedom," despite the rhetoric of politicians about 
the virtues of a "free society" and "The Free World" -- as if voting 
once every four or five years could ever be classed as "liberty" or 
even "democracy." 

Marginalisation of the people is the key control mechanism in the 
state and authoritarian organisations in general. Considering the 
European Community (EC), for example, we find that the "mechanism 
for decision-making between EC states leaves power in the hands of 
officials (from Interior ministries, police, immigration, customs 
and security services) through a myriad of working groups. Senior 
officials . . . play a critical role in ensuring agreements between 
the different state officials. The EC Summit meetings, comprising 
the 12 Prime Ministers, simply rubber-stamp the conclusions agreed 
by the Interior and Justice Ministers. It is only then, in this 
intergovernmental process, that parliaments and people are informed 
(and them only with the barest details)." [Tony Bunyon, _Statewatching 
the New Europe_, p. 39]

As well as economic pressures from elites, governments also face 
pressures within the state itself due to the bureaucracy that comes 
with centralism. There is a difference between the state and government. 
The state is the permanent collection of institutions that have entrenched 
power structures and interests. The government is made up of various 
politicians. It's the institutions that have power in the state due 
to their permanence, not the representatives who come and go. As Clive 
Ponting (an ex-civil servant himself) indicates, "the function of a 
political system in any country . . . is to regulate, but not to alter 
radically, the existing economic structure and its linked power 
relationships. The great illusion of politics is that politicians 
have the ability to make whatever changes they like." [quoted in 
_Alternatives_, no. 5, p. 19]
 
Therefore, as well as marginalising the people, the state also ends up
marginalising "our" representatives. As power rests not in the elected
bodies, but in a bureaucracy, popular control becomes increasingly
meaningless. As Bakunin pointed out, "liberty can be valid only
when . . . [popular] control [of the state] is valid. On the contrary, 
where such control is fictitious, this freedom of the people likewise 
becomes a mere fiction." [Op. Cit., p. 212] State centralisation ensures
that popular control is meaningless.

This means that state centralism can become a serious source of danger
to the liberty and well-being of most of the people under it. "The
bourgeois republicans," argued Bakunin, "do not yet grasp this simple
truth, demonstrated by the experience of all times and in all lands,
that every organised power standing above and over the people necessarily
excludes the freedom of peoples. The political state has no other purpose
than to protect and perpetuate the exploitation of the labour of the 
proletariat by the economically dominant classes, and in so doing the
state places itself against the freedom of the people." [_Bakunin on
Anarchism_, p. 416] 

Unsurprisingly, therefore, "whatever progress that has been made 
. . . on various issues, whatever things have been done for people,
whatever human rights have been gained, have not been gained through
the calm deliberations of Congress or the wisdom of presidents or
the ingenious decisions of the Supreme Court. Whatever progress has
been made . . . has come because of the actions of ordinary people,
of citizens, of social movements. Not from the Constitution." That
document has been happily ignored by the official of the state when
it suits them. An obvious example is the 14th Amendment of the US
Constitution, which "didn't have any meaning until black people 
rose up in the 1950s and 1960s in the South in mass movements . . .
They made whatever words there were in the Constitution and the 14th
Amendment have some meaning for the first time." [Howard Zinn,
_Failure to Quit_, p. 69 and p. 73]

This is because the "fact that you have got a constitutional right
doesn't mean you're going to get that right. Who has the power on
the spot? The policeman on the street. The principal in the school.
The employer on job. The Constitution does not cover private 
employment. In other words, the Constitution does not cover most
of reality." Thus our liberty is not determined by the laws of 
the state. Rather "the source and solution of our civil liberties
problems are in the situations of every day . . . Our actual 
freedom is determined not by the Constitution or the Court,
but by the power the policeman has over us on the street or that
of the local judge behind him; by the authority of our employers;
. . . by the welfare bureaucrats if we are poor; . . . by landlords
if we are tenants." Thus freedom and justice "are determined by 
power and money" rather than laws. This points to the importance
of popular participation, of social movements, for what those do
are "to create a countervailing power to the policeman with a club 
and a gun. That's essentially what movements do: They create 
countervailing powers to counter the power which is much more 
important than what is written down in the Constitution or the 
laws." [Zinn, Op. Cit., pp. 84-5, pp. 54-5 and p. 79]

It is precisely this kind of mass participation that centralisation
kills. Under centralism, social concern and power are taken away from 
ordinary citizens and centralised in the hands of the few. This results
in any formally guaranteed liberties being effectively ignored when 
people want to use them, if the powers at be so decide. Ultimately,
isolated individuals facing the might of a centralised state machine
are in a weak position. Which is way the state does what it can to
undermine such popular movements and organisations (going so far as
to violate its own laws to do so).

As should be obvious, by centralisation anarchists do not mean simply a
territorial centralisation of power in a specific central location (such
as in a nation state where power rests in a central government located in 
a specific place). We also mean the centralisation of *power* into a few 
hands. Thus we can have a system like feudalism which is territorially 
decentralised (i.e. made up on numerous feudal lords without a strong 
central state) while having power centralised in a few hands locally 
(i.e. power rests in the hands of the feudal lords, not in the general 
population). Or, to use another example, we can have a laissez-faire 
capitalist system which has a weak central authority but is made up of a 
multitude of autocratic workplaces. As such, getting rid of the central 
power (say the central state in capitalism or the monarch in absolutism) 
while retaining the local authoritarian institutions (say capitalist 
firms and feudal landlords) would not ensure freedom. Equally, the
abolition of local authorities may simply result in the strengthening
of central power and a corresponding weakening of freedom. 

B.2.5 Who benefits from centralisation?

No social system would exist unless it benefited someone or some group.
Centralisation, be it in the state or the company, is no different. In
all cases, centralisation directly benefits those at the top, because it
shelters them from those who are below, allowing the latter to be
controlled and governed more effectively. Therefore, it is in the direct
interests of bureaucrats and politicians to support centralism. 

Under capitalism, however, various sections of the business class also
support state centralism. This is the symbiotic relationship between
capital and the state. As will be discussed later (in section F.8), the 
state played an important role in "nationalising" the market, i.e. forcing 
the "free market" onto society. By centralising power in the hands of
representatives and so creating a state bureaucracy, ordinary people were
disempowered and thus became less likely to interfere with the interests
of the wealthy. "In a republic," writes Bakunin, "the so-called people,
the legal people, allegedly represented by the State, stifle and will keep
on stifling the actual and living people" by "the bureaucratic world" for
"the greater benefit of the privileged propertied classes as well as for
its own benefit." [Op. Cit., p. 211]
 
Examples of increased political centralisation being promoted by
wealthy business interests by can be seen throughout the history of
capitalism. "In revolutionary America, 'the nature of city government
came in for heated discussion,' observes Merril Jensen . . . Town 
meetings . . . 'had been a focal point of revolutionary activity'. 
The anti-democratic reaction that set in after the American revolution 
was marked by efforts to do away with town meeting government . . . 
Attempts by conservative elements were made to establish a 'corporate 
form (of municipal government) whereby the towns would be governed by 
mayors and councils' elected from urban wards . . . [T]he merchants 
'backed incorporation consistently in their efforts to escape town 
meetings.'" [Murray Bookchin, _Towards an Ecological Society_, 
p. 182]

Here we see local policy making being taken out of the hands of the many 
and centralised in the hands of the few (who are always the wealthy). 
France provides another example: 

"The Government found. . .the folkmotes [of all households] 'too noisy', 
too disobedient, and in 1787, elected councils, composed of a mayor and 
three to six syndics, chosen among the wealthier peasants, were
introduced instead." [Peter Kropotkin, _Mutual Aid_, pp. 185-186]

This was part of a general movement to disempower the working class
by centralising decision making power into the hands of the few (as
in the American revolution). Kropotkin indicates the process at work:

"[T]he middle classes, who had until then had sought the support of
the people, in order to obtain constitutional laws and to dominate
the higher nobility, were going, now that they had seen and felt
the strength of the people, to do all they could to dominate the
people, to disarm them and to drive them back into subjection.

[. . .]

"[T]hey made haste to legislate in such a way that the political
power which was slipping out of the hand of the Court should
not fall into the hands of the people. Thus . . . [it was]
proposed . . . to divide the French into two classes, of which
one only, the *active* citizens, should take part in the
government, whilst the other, comprising the great mass of the
people under the name of *passive* citizens, should be deprived
of all political rights . . . [T]he [National] Assembly divided 
France into departments . . . always maintaining the principle of 
excluding the poorer classes from the Government . . . [T]hey 
excluded from the primary assemblies the mass of the people . . . 
who could no longer take part in the primary assemblies, and
accordingly had no right to nominate the electors [who chose 
representatives to the National Assembly], or the municipality,
or any of the local authorities . . .

"And finally, the *permanence* of the electoral assemblies was
interdicted. Once the middle-class governors were appointed,
these assemblies were not to meet again. Once the middle-class
governors were appointed, they must not be controlled too
strictly. Soon the right even of petitioning and of passing
resolutions was taken away -- 'Vote and hold your tongue!'

"As to the villages . . . the general assembly of the 
inhabitants . . . [to which] belonged the administration
of the affairs of the commune . . . were forbidden by the
. . . law. Henceforth only the well-to-do peasants, the
*active* citizens, had the right to meet, *once a year*,
to nominate the mayor and the municipality, composed of
three or four middle-class men of the village.

"A similar municipal organisation was given to the towns. . .

"[Thus] the middle classes surrounded themselves with every 
precaution in order to keep the municipal power in the hands 
of the well-to-do members of the community." [_The Great French
Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 179-186]

Thus centralisation aimed to take power away from the mass of
the people and give it to the wealthy. The power of the people
rested in popular assemblies, such as the "Sections" and "Districts"
of Paris (expressing, in Kropotkin's words, "the principles of
anarchism" and "practising . . . Direct Self-Government" [Op. 
Cit., p. 204 and p. 203]) and village assemblies. However,
the National Assembly "tried all it could to lessen the power
of the districts . . . [and] put an end to those hotbeds of
Revolution . . . [by allowing] *active* citizens only . . . 
to take part in the electoral and administrative assemblies." 
[Op. Cit., p. 211] Thus the "central government was steadily 
endeavouring to subject the sections to its authority" with 
the state "seeking to centralise everything in its own hands 
. . . [I]ts depriving the popular organisations . . . all 
. . . administrative functions . . . and its subjecting
them to its bureaucracy in police matters, meant the death
of the sections." [Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 549 and p. 552]

As can be seen, both the French and American revolutions saw
a similar process by which the wealthy centralised power into
their own hands (volume one of Murray Bookchin's _The Third 
Revolution_ discusses the French and American revolutions in 
some detail). This ensured that working class people (i.e.
the majority) were excluded from the decision making process
and subject to the laws and power of a few. Which, of course,
benefits the minority class whose representatives have that
power. This was the rationale for the centralisation of power 
in every revolution. Whether it was the American, French or
Russian, the centralisation of power was the means to exclude
the many from participating in the decisions that affected
them and their communities. 

For example, the founding fathers of the American State were 
quite explicit on the need for centralisation for precisely 
this reason. For James Madison the key worry was when the 
"majority" gained control of "popular government" and was 
in a position to "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest 
both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Thus 
the "public good" escaped the "majority" nor was it, as you 
would think, what the public thought of as good (for some 
reason left unexplained, Madison considered the majority able
to pick those who *could* identify the public good). To safeguard 
against this, he advocated a republic rather than a democracy 
in which the citizens "assemble and administer the government 
in person . . . have ever been found incompatible with personal 
security or the rights of property." He, of course, took it for 
granted that "[t]hose who hold and those who are without property 
have ever formed distinct interests in society." His schema was
to ensure that private property was defended and, as a consequence,
the interests of those who held protected. Hence the need for 
"the delegation of the government . . . to a small number of 
citizens elected by the rest." This centralisation of power 
into a few hands locally was matched by a territorial centralisation
for the same reason. Madison favoured "a large over a small 
republic" as a "rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts,
for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or
wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of
the Union than a particular member of it." [contained in _Voices
of a People's History of the United States_, Howard Zinn and 
Anthony Arnove (eds.), pp. 109-113] This desire to have a formal
democracy, where the masses are mere spectators of events rather
than participants, is a recurring theme in capitalism (see the 
chapter "Force and Opinion" in Noam Chomsky's _Deterring Democracy_ 
for a good overview).

On the federal and state levels in the US after the Revolution,
centralisation of power was encouraged, since "most of the makers 
of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing 
a strong federal government." Needless to say, while the rich elite
were well represented in formulating the principles of the new order,
four groups were not: "slaves, indentured servants, women, men without
property." Needless to say, the new state and its constitution did not 
reflect their interests. Given that these were the vast majority, 
"there was not only a positive need for strong central government 
to protect the large economic interests, but also immediate fear
of rebellion by discontented farmers." [Howard Zinn, _A People's 
History of the United States_, p. 90] The chief event was Shay's
Rebellion in western Massachusetts. There the new Constitution had
raised property qualifications for voting and, therefore, no one 
could hold state office without being wealthy. The new state was
formed to combat such rebellions, to protect the wealthy few against
the many.

Moreover, state centralisation, the exclusion of popular participation, 
was essential to mould US society into one dominated by capitalism:

"In the thirty years leading up to the Civil War, the law was 
increasingly interpreted in the courts to suit capitalist development.
Studying this, Morton Horwitz (_The Transformation of American Law_)
points out that the English common-law was no longer holy when it 
stood in the way of business growth . . . Judgements for damages 
against businessmen were taken out of the hands of juries, which 
were unpredictable, and given to judges . . . The ancient idea of 
a fair price for goods gave way in the courts to the idea of caveat 
emptor (let the buyer beware) . . . contract law was intended to 
discriminate against working people and for business . . . The 
pretence of the law was that a worker and a railroad made a contract
with equal bargaining power . . . 'The circle was completed; the law 
had come simply to ratify those forms of inequality that the market 
system had produced.'" [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 234]

The US state was created on elitist liberal doctrine and actively aimed
to reduce democratic tendencies (in the name of "individual liberty"). 
What happened in practice (unsurprisingly enough) was that the wealthy 
elite used the state to undermine popular culture and common right in 
favour of protecting and extending their own interests and power. In 
the process, US society was reformed in their own image:

"By the middle of the nineteenth century the legal system had been 
reshaped to the advantage of men of commerce and industry at the 
expense of farmers, workers, consumers, and other less powerful groups 
in society. . . it actively promoted a legal distribution of wealth 
against the weakest groups in society." [Morton Horwitz, quoted by 
Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 235]

In more modern times, state centralisation and expansion has gone hand in
glove with rapid industrialisation and the growth of business. As Edward
Herman points out, "[t]o a great extent, it was the growth in business
size and power that elicited the countervailing emergence of unions and 
the growth of government. Bigness *beyond* business was to a large extent
a response to bigness *in* business." [_Corporate Control, Corporate 
Power_, p. 188 -- see also, Stephen Skowronek, _Building A New American 
State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920_]
State centralisation was required to produce bigger, well-defined markets 
and was supported by business when it acted in their interests (i.e. as
markets expanded, so did the state in order to standardise and enforce
property laws and so on). On the other hand, this development towards
"big government" created an environment in which big business could grow 
(often encouraged by the state by subsidies and protectionism - as would be 
expected when the state is run by the wealthy) as well as further removing
state power from influence by the masses and placing it more firmly in
the hands of the wealthy. It is little wonder we see such developments, 
for "[s]tructures of governance tend to coalesce around domestic power, 
in the last few centuries, economic power." [Noam Chomsky, _World Orders, 
Old and New_, p. 178]

State centralisation makes it easier for business to control government,
ensuring that it remains their puppet and to influence the political
process. For example, the European Round Table (ERT) "an elite lobby group
of . . . chairmen or chief executives of large multi-nationals based mainly
in the EU . . . [with] 11 of the 20 largest European companies [with]
combined sales [in 1991]. . .exceeding $500 billion, . . .approximately
60 per cent of EU industrial production," makes much use of the EU. As
two researchers who have studied this body note, the ERT "is adept at
lobbying . . . so that many ERT proposals and 'visions' are mysteriously
regurgitated in Commission summit documents." The ERT "claims that 
the labour market should be more 'flexible,' arguing for more
flexible hours, seasonal contracts, job sharing and part time work. In
December 1993, seven years after the ERT made its suggestions [and 
after most states had agreed to the Maastricht Treaty and its "social
chapter"], the European Commission published a white paper . . .
[proposing] making labour markets in Europe more flexible." [Doherty 
and Hoedeman, "Knights of the Road," _New Statesman_, 4/11/94, p. 27]

The current talk of globalisation, NAFTA, and the Single European Market
indicates an underlying transformation in which state growth follows the
path cut by economic growth. Simply put, with the growth of transnational
corporations and global finance markets, the bounds of the nation-state
have been made economically redundant. As companies have expanded into
multi-nationals, so the pressure has mounted for states to follow suit and
rationalise their markets across "nations" by creating multi-state
agreements and unions.

As Noam Chomsky notes, G7, the IMF, the World Bank and so forth are a "de
facto world government," and "the institutions of the transnational state
largely serve other masters [than the people], as state power typically
does; in this case the rising transnational corporations in the domains of
finance and other services, manufacturing, media and communications" [Op.
Cit., p. 179]. 

As multi-nationals grow and develop, breaking through national boundaries, 
a corresponding growth in statism is required. Moreover, a "particularly 
valuable feature of the rising de facto governing institutions is their 
immunity from popular influence, even awareness. They operate in secret, 
creating a world subordinated to the needs of investors, with the public 
'put in its place', the threat of democracy reduced" [Chomsky, Op. Cit., 
p. 178].

This does not mean that capitalists desire state centralisation for
everything. Often, particularly for social issues, relative
decentralisation is often preferred (i.e. power is given to local
bureaucrats) in order to increase business control over them. By 
devolving control to local areas, the power which large corporations, 
investment firms and the like have over the local government increases 
proportionally. In addition, even middle-sized enterprise can join in 
and influence, constrain or directly control local policies and set 
one workforce against another. Private power can ensure that "freedom" 
is safe, *their* freedom.

No matter which set of bureaucrats are selected, the need to centralise
social power, thus marginalising the population, is of prime importance 
to the business class. It is also important to remember that capitalist 
opposition to "big government" is often financial, as the state feeds 
off the available social surplus, so reducing the amount left for the 
market to distribute to the various capitals in competition. 

In reality, what capitalists object to about "big government" is its 
spending on social programs designed to benefit the poor and working 
class, an "illegitimate" function which "wastes" part of the surplus 
that might go to capital (and also makes people less desperate and 
so less willing to work cheaply). Hence the constant push to reduce 
the state to its "classical" role as protector of private property 
and the system, and little else. Other than their specious quarrel 
with the welfare state, capitalists are the staunchest supports of 
government (and the "correct" form of state intervention, such as 
defence spending), as evidenced by the fact that funds can always 
be found to build more prisons and send troops abroad to advance 
ruling-class interests, even as politicians are crying that there 
is "no money" in the treasury for scholarships, national health care, 
or welfare for the poor. 

State centralisation ensures that "as much as the equalitarian principles 
have been embodied in its political constitutions, it is the bourgeoisie 
that governs, and it is the people, the workers, peasants included, 
who obey the laws made by the bourgeoisie" who "has in fact if not 
by right the exclusive privilege of governing." This means that 
"political equality . . . is only a puerile fiction, an utter lie." 
It takes a great deal of faith to assume that the rich, "being so far
removed from the people by the conditions of its economic and social
existence" can "give expression in the government and in the laws, to
the feelings, the ideas, and the will of the people." Unsurprisingly,
we find that "in legislation as well as in carrying on the government,
the bourgeoisie is guided by its own interests and its own instincts
without concerning itself much with the interests of the people." So
while "on election days even the proudest bourgeois who have any 
political ambitions are forced to court . . . The Sovereign People."
But on the "day after the elections every one goes back to their 
daily business" and the politicians are given carte blanche to rule
in the name of the people they claim to represent." [Bakunin, 
_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 218 and p. 219]

B.2.6 Can the state be an independent power within society?

Yes it can. Given the power of the state machine, it would be hard 
to believe that it could always be simply a tool for the economically 
dominant minority in a society. Given its structure and powers, it 
can use them to further its own interests. Indeed, in some circumstances 
it can be the ruling class itself.

However, in normal times the state is, as we discussed in section B.2.1,
a tool of the capitalist class. This, it must be stressed, does not mean 
that they always see "eye to eye." Top politicians, for example, are part 
of the ruling elite, but they are in competition with other parts of it. 
In addition, different sectors of the capitalist class are competing 
against each other for profits, political influence, privileges, etc. 
The bourgeoisie, argued Malatesta, "are always at war among themselves 
. . . Thus the games of the swings, the manoeuvres, the concessions 
and withdrawals, the attempts to find allies among the people against 
the conservatives, and among the conservatives against the people." 
[_Anarchy_, p. 25] This means that different sections of the ruling class
will cluster around different parties, depending on their interests, and
these parties will seek to gain power to further those interests. This
may bring them into conflict with other sections of the capitalist class.
The state is the means by which these conflicts can be resolved.

Given that the role of the state is to ensure the best conditions for 
capital *as a whole,* this means that, when necessary, it can and does 
work against the interests of certain parts of the capitalist class. 
To carry out this function the state needs to be above individual
capitalists or companies. This is what can give the state the 
appearance of being a neutral social institution and can fool 
people into thinking that it represents the interests of society 
as a whole. Yet this sometime neutrality with regards to individual
capitalist companies exists only as an expression of its role as an 
instrument of capital in general. Moreover, without the tax money 
from successful businesses the state would be weakened and so the 
state is in competition with capitalists for the surplus value 
produced by the working class. Hence the anti-state rhetoric of big
business which can fool those unaware of the hand-in-glove nature of
modern capitalism to the state. 

As Chomsky notes:

"There has always been a kind of love-hate relationship between 
business interests and the capitalist state. On the one hand, 
business wants a powerful state to regulate disorderly markets,
provide services and subsidies to business, enhance and protect
access to foreign markets and resources, and so on. On the other
hand, business does not want a powerful competitor, in particular,
one that might respond to different interests, popular interests,
and conduct policies with a redistributive effect, with regard to
income or power." [_Turning the Tide_, p. 211]
 As such, the state is often in conflict with sections of the capitalist 
class, just as sections of that class use the state to advance their own 
interests within the general framework of protecting the capitalist system 
(i.e. the interests of the ruling class *as a class*). The state's role
is to resolve such disputes within that class peacefully. Under modern 
capitalism, this is usually done via the "democratic" process (within
which we get the chance of picking the representatives of the elite who
will oppress us least).

Such conflicts sometimes give the impression of the state being a 
"neutral" body, but this is an illusion -- it exists to defend class 
power and privilege -- but exactly which class it defends can change.
While recognising that the state protects the power and position 
of the economically dominant class within a society anarchists 
also argue that the state has, due to its hierarchical nature, 
interests of its own. Thus it cannot be considered as simply 
the tool of the economically dominant class in society. States have
their own dynamics, due to their structure, which generate their 
own classes and class interests and privileges (and which allows 
them to escape from the control of the economic ruling class and 
pursue their own interests, to a greater or lesser degree). As
Malatesta put it "the government, though springing from the 
bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends, as with every 
servant and every protector, to achieve its own emancipation
and to dominate whoever it protects." [Op. Cit., p. 25] 

Thus, even in a class system like capitalism, the state can act 
independently of the ruling elite and, potentially, act against 
their interests. As part of its role is to mediate between individual
capitalists/corporations, it needs sufficient power to tame them
and this requires the state to have some independence from the 
class whose interests it, in general, defends. And such independence 
can be used to further its own interests, even to the detriment of 
the capitalist class, if the circumstances allow. If the capitalist
class is weak or divided then the state can be in a position to 
exercise its autonomy vis--vis the economically dominant elite,
using against the capitalists as a whole the tools it usually
applies to them individually to further its own interests and 
powers.

This means that the state it not just "the guardian of capital" for 
it "has a vitality of its own and constitutes . . . a veritable 
social class apart from other classes . . . ; and this class has 
its own particular parasitical and usurious interests, in conflict 
with those of the rest of the collectivity which the State itself 
claims to represent . . . The State, being the depository of 
society's greatest physical and material force, has too much power 
in its hands to resign itself to being no more than the capitalists' 
guard dog." [Luigi Fabbri, quoted by David Berry, _A History of the 
French Anarchist Movement, 1917-1945_, p. 39]

Therefore the state machine (and structure), while its modern 
form is intrinsically linked to capitalism, cannot be seen as
being a tool usable by the majority. This is because the "State,
any State -- even when it dresses-up in the most liberal and
democratic form -- is essentially based on domination, and
upon violence, that is upon despotism -- a concealed but no
less dangerous despotism." The State "denotes power, authority, 
domination; it presupposes inequality in fact." [_The Political 
Philosophy of Michael Bakunin_, p. 211 and p. 240] The state,
therefore, has its own specific logic, its own priorities and
its own momentum. It constitutes its own locus of power which
is not merely a derivative of economic class power. Consequently, 
the state can be beyond the control of the economically dominant 
class and it need not reflect economic relations. 

This is due to its hierarchical and centralised nature, which
empowers the few who control the state machine -- "[e]very
state power, every government, by its nature places itself
outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates
them to an organisation and to aims which are foreign to
and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people." 
If "the whole proletariat . . . [are] members of the government 
. . . there will be no government, no state, but, if there is 
to be a state there will be those who are ruled and those who 
are slaves." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 328 and p. 330] 

In other words, the state bureaucracy is itself directly an 
oppressor and can exist independently of an economically
dominant class. In Bakunin's prophetic words:

"What have we seen throughout history? The State has always
been the patrimony of some privileged class: the sacerdotal
class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie -- and finally, when
all other classes have exhausted themselves, the class of
the bureaucracy enters the stage and then the State falls,
or rises, if you please, to the position of a machine."
[_The Political Philosophy of Michael Bakunin_, p. 208]

This is unsurprising. For anarchists, "the State organisation 
. . . [is] the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and 
organising their power over the masses." It does not imply that these
minorities need to be the economically dominant class in a society.
The state is "a superstructure built to the advantage of Landlordism, 
Capitalism, and Officialism." [_Evolution and Environment_, p. 82 and
p. 105] Consequently, we cannot assume that abolishing one or even two 
of this unholy trinity will result in freedom nor that all three share
exactly the same interests or power in relation to the others. Thus,
in some situations, the landlord class can promote its interests over
those of the capitalist class (and vice versa) while the state 
bureaucracy can grow at the expense of both.

As such, it is important to stress that the minority whose interests 
the state defends need not be an economically dominant one (although 
it usually is). Under some circumstances a priesthood can be a ruling 
class, as can a military group or a bureaucracy. This means that the 
state can also effectively *replace* the economically dominant elite
as the exploiting class. This is because anarchists view the state as 
having (class) interests of its own. 

As we discuss in more detail in section H.3.9, the state cannot be 
considered as merely an instrument of (economic) class rule. History 
has shown numerous societies were the state *itself* was the ruling 
class and where no other dominant economic class existed. The 
experience of Soviet Russia indicates the validity of this analysis. 
The reality of the Russian Revolution contrasted starkly with the 
Marxist claim that a state was simply an instrument of class rule 
and, consequently, the working class needed to build its own state 
within which to rule society. Rather than being an instrument by 
which working class people could run and transform society in their 
own interests, the new state created by the Russian Revolution soon 
became a power over the class it claimed to represent (see sections 
H.3.15 and H.3.16 for more on this). The working class was exploited 
and dominated by the new state and its bureaucracy rather than by 
the capitalist class as previously. This did not happen by chance. 
As we discuss in section H.3.7, the state has evolved certain 
characteristics (such as centralisation, delegated power and so on) 
which ensure its task as enforcer of minority rule is achieved. 
Keeping those characteristics will inevitably mean keeping the 
task they were created to serve.

Thus, to summarise, the state's role is to repress the individual 
and the working class as a whole in the interests of economically 
dominant minorities/classes and in its own interests. It is "a 
society for mutual insurance between the landlord, the military 
commander, the judge, the priest, and later on the capitalist, in 
order to support such other's authority over the people, and for 
exploiting the poverty of the masses and getting rich themselves." 
Such was the "origin of the State; such was its history; and such 
is its present essence." [Kropotkin, _Evolution and Environment_, 
p. 94] 

So while the state is an instrument of class rule it does *not* 
automatically mean that it does not clash with sections of the class 
it represents nor that it has to be the tool of an economically 
dominant class. One thing is sure, however. The state is not a
suitable tool for securing the emancipation of the oppressed. 

B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?

Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, 
along side hierarchical authority and the state. Today, the dominant 
system of private property is capitalist in nature and, as such, 
anarchists tend to concentrate on this system and its property 
rights regime. We will be reflecting this here but do not, because 
of this, assume that anarchists consider other forms of private 
property regime (such as, say, feudalism) as acceptable. This is 
not the case -- anarchists are against every form of property 
rights regime which results in the many working for the few.

Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, 
arguments. These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from 
_What is Property?_ that "property is theft" and "property is 
despotism." In his words, "Property . . . violates equality by 
the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism 
. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, 
_What is Property_, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose 
private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of 
coercive, hierarchical authority as well as exploitation and,
consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based on
and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.

We will summarise each argument in turn.

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most
famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone
who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works
in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the
earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have 
been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a
consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who 
do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell 
their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the 
resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, 
machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and 
such like -- see section B.3.2 for more discussion).

As we discuss in section B.3.3, this exploitation (theft) flows
from the fact that workers do not own or control the means of 
production they use and, as a consequence, are controlled by 
those who do during work hours. This alienation of control over 
labour to the boss places the employer in a position to exploit 
that labour -- to get the worker to produce more than they get 
paid in wages. That is precisely *why* the boss employs the worker.
Combine this with rent, interest and intellectual property rights 
and we find the secret to maintaining the capitalist system as all 
allow enormous inequalities of wealth to continue and keep the 
resources of the world in the hands of a few. 

Yet labour cannot be alienated. Therefore when you sell your labour 
you sell yourself, your liberty, for the time in question. This
brings us to the second reason why anarchists oppose private property,
the fact it produces authoritarian social relationships. For all 
true anarchists, property is opposed as a source of authority, 
indeed despotism. To quote Proudhon on this subject:

"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for 
all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, 
and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he 
pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at 
once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That 
is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced 
of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what 
happens around him. Property is the right to *use* and *abuse* 
. . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors 
be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their 
*facultes bonitaires*? And if each proprietor is sovereign 
lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king 
throughout his own domain, how could a government of 
proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" 
[Op. Cit., pp. 266-7]

In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the 
property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, 
and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, 
the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their 
orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, 
is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is 
degrading to have to follow orders). And so private property 
(capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and 
control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life. 

It is, of course, true that private property provides a sphere of 
decision-making free from outside interference -- but only for the 
property's owners. But for those who are not property owners the 
situation if radically different. In a system of exclusively private 
property does not guarantee them any such sphere of freedom. They 
have only the freedom to sell their liberty to those who *do* own 
private property. If I am evicted from one piece of private 
property, where can I go? Nowhere, unless another owner agrees to 
allow me access to their piece of private property. This means that 
everywhere I can stand is a place where I have no right to stand 
without permission and, as a consequence, I exist only by the 
sufferance of the property owning elite. Hence Proudhon:

"Just as the commoner once held his land by the munificence and
condescension of the lord, so to-day the working-man holds his
labour by the condescension and necessities of the master and
proprietor." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 128]

This means that far from providing a sphere of independence, 
a society in which all property is private thus renders the 
property-less completely dependent on those who own property. 
This ensures that the exploitation of another's labour occurs
and that some are subjected to the will of others, in direct
contradiction to what the defenders of property promise. This 
is unsurprising given the nature of the property they are 
defending:

"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
private property by stating that property is the condition and 
guarantee of liberty.

"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty 
is slavery?

"But then why do we oppose them?

"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is 
capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live 
from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence 
of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their 
labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . 
This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which,
though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social
inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the
primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order." 
[Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 113]

It will, of course, be objected that no one forces a worker to 
work for a given boss. However, as we discuss in section B.4.3, 
this assertion (while true) misses the point. While workers are 
not forced to work for a *specific* boss, they inevitably have 
to work for a boss. This is because there is literally no other 
way to survive -- all other economic options have been taken 
from them by state coercion. The net effect is that the working 
class has little choice but to hire themselves out to those with 
property and, as a consequence, the labourer "has sold and 
surrendered his liberty" to the boss. [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 130] 

Private property, therefore, produces a very specific form of 
authority structure within society, a structure in which a few
govern the many during working hours. These relations of production 
are inherently authoritarian and embody and perpetuate the capitalist 
class system. The moment you enter the factory gate or the office door, 
you lose all your basic rights as a human being. You have no freedom 
of speech nor association and no right of assembly. If you were asked 
to ignore your values, your priorities, your judgement, and your 
dignity, and leave them at the door when you enter your home, you 
would rightly consider that tyranny yet that is exactly what you 
do during working hours if you are a worker. You have no say 
in what goes on. You may as well be a horse (to use John Locke's 
analogy -- see section B.4.2) or a piece of machinery.

Little wonder, then, that anarchists oppose private property as 
Anarchy is "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" [Proudhon,
Op. Cit., p. 264] and call capitalism for what it is, namely 
*wage slavery*! 

For these reasons, anarchists agree with Rousseau when he stated: 
 "The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of 
saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe 
him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, 
murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had 
been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling 
in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening 
to this impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the 
earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" 
["Discourse on Inequality," _The Social Contract and Discourses_,
p. 84]

This explains anarchist opposition to capitalism. It is marked 
by two main features, "private property" (or in some cases, 
state-owned property -- see section B.3.5) and, consequently, 
wage labour and exploitation and authority. Moreover, such a 
system requires a state to maintain itself for as "long as 
within society a possessing and non-possessing group of human 
beings face one another in enmity, the state will be indispensable 
to the possessing minority for the protection for its privileges." 
[Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 11] Thus private ownership 
of the means of production is only possible if there is a state, 
meaning mechanisms of organised coercion at the disposal of the 
propertied class (see section B.2). 

Also, it ought to be easy to see that capitalism, by giving 
rise to an ideologically inalienable "right" to private property, 
will also quickly give rise to inequalities in the distribution 
of external resources, and that this inequality in resource 
distribution will give rise to a further inequality in the 
relative bargaining positions of the propertied and the 
property less. While apologists for capitalism usually 
attempt to justify private property by claiming that 
"self-ownership" is a "universal right" (see section B.4.2 
-- "Is capitalism based on self-ownership?"), it is clear 
that capitalism actually makes universal autonomy implied 
by the flawed concept of self-ownership (for the appeal of 
the notion of self-ownership rests on the ideal that people
are not used as a means but only as an end in themselves). The 
capitalist system, however, has undermined autonomy and individual 
freedom, and ironically, has used the term "self-ownership" as 
the basis for doing so. Under capitalism, as will be seen in 
section B.4, most people are usually left in a situation where 
their best option is to allow themselves to be used in just 
those ways that are logically incompatible with genuine 
self-ownership, i.e. the autonomy which makes it initially 
an appealing concept.

Only libertarian socialism can continue to affirm the meaningful autonomy 
and individual freedom which self-ownership promises whilst building 
the conditions that guarantee it.  Only by abolishing private property 
can there be access to the means of life for all, so making the autonomy 
which self-ownership promises but cannot deliver a reality by 
universalising self-management in all aspects of life. 

Before discussing the anti-libertarian aspects of capitalism, it will 
be necessary to define "private property" as distinct from "personal
possessions" and show in more detail why the former requires state
protection and is exploitative.

B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession? 

Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) 
as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which 
are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other 
hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others 
(e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things 
can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how 
they are used. 

To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property 
which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of 
personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which
become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property
"which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings,
instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and 
manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, 
_About Anarchism_, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose 
those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which 
are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter 
and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as
in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).

The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" 
or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between
the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a 
possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it 
becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as 
a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one 
employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is 
property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers 
are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a 
co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example 
of "possession." To quote Proudhon:

"The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument 
of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument 
without using it himself. To this end he lends it." [Op. Cit., p. 293]

While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is 
very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists 
tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to 
a transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very
different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:

"Originally the word *property* was synonymous with *proper* or 
*individual possession.* It designated each individual's special
right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . 
became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary 
converted his right to personally use the thing into the right 
to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed 
its nature and this idea became complex." [Op. Cit., pp. 395-6]

Proudhon graphically illustrated the distinction by comparing a 
lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! As he stressed, 
the "double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is 
of highest importance; and must be clearly understood, in order to
comprehend" what anarchism is really about. So while some may question 
why we make this distinction, the reason is clear. As Proudhon argued, 
"it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep 
the name 'property' for the former [possession], we must call the 
latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on 
the contrary, we reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must 
designate the former by the term *possession* or some other equivalent; 
otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym." [Op. Cit., 
p. 65 and p. 373]

The difference between property and possession can be seen from the
types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of 
a capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace 
determine how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This 
leads to an almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, 
"the term 'totalitarian' is quite accurate. There is no human 
institution that approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business 
corporation. I mean, power is completely top-down. You can be inside 
it somewhere and you take orders from above and hand 'em down. 
Ultimately, it's in the hands of owners and investors." Thus the 
actual producer does not control their own activity, the product 
of their labour nor the means of production they use. In modern 
class societies, the producer is in a position of subordination 
to those who actually do own or manage the productive process.

In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only
title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who 
work within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and 
equality within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private 
property and capitalism flows naturally from anarchism's basic 
principles and ideas. Hence all anarchists agree with Proudhon:

"Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property
while maintaining possession." [Op. Cit., p. 271]

As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes 
private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and 
with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only 
in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch 
factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public 
utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. 
Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership 
but to possession." [_What is Anarchism?_, p. 217] 

This analysis of different forms of property is at the heart of both 
social and individualist anarchism. This means that all anarchists 
seek to change people's opinions on what is to be considered as 
valid forms of property, aiming to see that "the Anarchistic view 
that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding 
becomes the prevailing view" and so ensure that "individuals
should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but 
personal occupation and cultivation [i.e. use] of land." 
[Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 159 and 
p. 85] The key differences, as we noted in section A.3.1, is
how they apply this principle.

This anarchist support for possession does not imply the break up of
large scale organisations such as factories or other workplaces which
require large numbers of people to operate. Far from it. Anarchists 
argue for association as the complement of possession. This means 
applying "occupancy and use" to property which is worked by more than 
one person results in associated labour, i.e. those who collectively
work together (i.e. use a given property) manage it and their own
labour as a self-governing, directly democratic, association of 
equals (usually called "self-management" for short). 

This logically flows from the theory of possession, of "occupancy and 
use." For if production is carried on in groups who is the legal 
occupier of the land? The employer or their manager? Obviously not,
as they are by definition occupying more than they can use by 
themselves. Clearly, the association of those engaged in the work
can be the only rational answer. Hence Proudhon's comment that "all 
accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive 
proprietor." "In order to destroy despotism and inequality of conditions, 
men must . . . become associates" and this implies workers' self-management 
-- "leaders, instructors, superintendents . . . must be chosen from the 
labourers by the labourers themselves." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 130, 
p. 372 and p. 137] 

In this way, anarchists seek, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the 
proletariat" and consider a key idea of our ideas that "Industrial 
Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism."  [Proudhon, 
_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 179 and p. 167]
Thus an anarchist society would be based on possession, with workers'
self-management being practised at all levels from the smallest one
person workplace or farm to large scale industry (see section I.3
for more discussion). 

Clearly, then, all anarchists seek to transform and limit property rights.
Capitalist property rights would be ended and a new system introduced
rooted in the concept of possession and use. While the exact nature of
that new system differs between schools of anarchist thought, the basic
principles are the same as they flow from the same anarchist theory of 
property to be found in Proudhon's, _What is Property?_. 

Significantly, William Godwin in his _Enquiry Concerning Political 
Justice_ makes the same point concerning the difference between property 
and possession (although not in the same language) fifty years before 
Proudhon, which indicates its central place in anarchist thought. For
Godwin, there were different kinds of property. One kind was "the empire 
to which every [person] is entitled over the produce of his [or her] 
own industry." However, another kind was "a system, in whatever manner 
established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of 
the produce of another man's industry." This "species of property is 
in direct contradiction" to the former kind (he similarities with
subsequent anarchist ideas is striking). For Godwin, inequality 
produces a "servile" spirit in the poor and, moreover, a person who 
"is born to poverty, may be said, under a another name, to be born a 
slave." [_The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin_, p. 133, p. 134,
p. 125 and p. 126]

Needless to say, anarchists have not be totally consistent in using 
this terminology. Some, for example, have referred to the capitalist 
and landlord classes as being the "possessing classes." Others prefer 
to use the term "personal property" rather than "possession" or "capital" 
rather than "private property." Some, like many individualist anarchists, 
use the term "property" in a general sense and qualify it with "occupancy 
and use" in the case of land, housing and workplaces. However, no matter 
the specific words used, the key idea is the same.

B.3.2 What kinds of property does the state protect? 

Kropotkin argued that the state was "the instrument for establishing 
monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities." [_Anarchism_, p. 286]
In every system of class exploitation, a ruling class controls access 
to the means of production in order to extract tribute from labour. 
Capitalism is no exception. In this system the state maintains various 
kinds of "class monopolies" (to use Tucker's phrase) to ensure that 
workers do not receive their "natural wage," the full product of 
their labour. While some of these monopolies are obvious (such as 
tariffs, state granted market monopolies and so on), most are "behind 
the scenes" and work to ensure that capitalist domination does not 
need extensive force to maintain. 

Under capitalism, there are four major kinds of property, or exploitative 
monopolies, that the state protects: 

	(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of 
	    capitalist banking;
	(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;  
	(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of 
	    industrial capitalism; 
	(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and 
	    patent ("intellectual property") royalties. 

By enforcing these forms of property, the state ensures that the 
objective conditions within the economy favour the capitalist, 
with the worker free only to accept oppressive and exploitative 
contracts within which they forfeit their autonomy and promise 
obedience or face misery and poverty. Due to these "initiations 
of force" conducted *previously* to any specific contract being 
signed, capitalists enrich themselves at our expense because we 
"are compelled to pay a heavy tribute to property holders for 
the right of cultivating land or putting machinery into action." 
[Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_, p. 103] These conditions 
obviously also make a mockery of free agreement (see section B.4). 

These various forms of state intervention are considered so normal 
many people do not even think of them as such. Thus we find 
defenders of "free market" capitalism thundering against forms 
of "state intervention" which are designed to aid the poor while 
seeing nothing wrong in defending intellectual property rights, 
corporations, absentee landlords and the other multitude of laws 
and taxes capitalists and their politicians have placed and kept upon 
the statute-books to skew the labour market in favour of themselves
(see section F.8 on the state's role in developing capitalism in the
first place).

Needless to say, despite the supposedly subtle role of such "objective" 
pressures in controlling the working class, working class resistance has 
been such that capital has never been able to dispense with the powers 
of the state, both direct and indirect. When "objective" means of control 
fail, the capitalists will always turn to the use of state repression to 
restore the "natural" order. Then the "invisible" hand of the market is
replaced by the visible fist of the state and the indirect means of 
securing ruling class profits and power are supplemented by more direct
forms by the state. As we indicate in section D.1, state intervention
beyond enforcing these forms of private property is the norm of capitalism, 
not the exception, and is done so to secure the power and profits of
the capitalist class.

To indicate the importance of these state backed monopolies, we shall 
sketch their impact. 

The credit monopoly, by which the state controls who can and cannot 
issue or loan money, reduces the ability of working class people to 
create their own alternatives to capitalism. By charging high amounts 
of interest on loans (which is only possible because competition is 
restricted) few people can afford to create co-operatives or one-person 
firms. In addition, having to repay loans at high interest to capitalist 
banks ensures that co-operatives often have to undermine their own 
principles by having to employ wage labour to make ends meet (see 
section J.5.11). It is unsurprising, therefore, that the very 
successful Mondragon co-operatives in the Basque Country created 
their own credit union which is largely responsible for the experiment's 
success.
 
Just as increasing wages is an important struggle within capitalism, 
so is the question of credit. Proudhon and his followers supported the 
idea of a *People's Bank.* If the working class could take over and 
control increasing amounts of money it could undercut capitalist power 
while building its own alternative social order (for money is ultimately 
the means of buying labour power, and so authority over the labourer - 
which is the key to surplus value production). Proudhon hoped that by 
credit being reduced to cost (namely administration charges) workers 
would be able to buy the means of production they needed. While most 
anarchists would argue that increased working class access to credit 
would no more bring down capitalism than increased wages, all 
anarchists recognise how more cheap credit, like more wages, can 
make life easier for working people and how the struggle for such 
credit, like the struggle for wages, might play a useful role in 
the development of the power of the working class within capitalism. 
Obvious cases that spring to mind are those where money has been 
used by workers to finance their struggles against capital, 
from strike funds and weapons to the periodical avoidance of work 
made possible by sufficiently high money income. Increased access 
to cheap credit would give working class people slightly more 
options than selling their liberty or facing misery (just as 
increased wages and unemployment benefit also gives us more 
options).

Therefore, the credit monopoly reduces competition to capitalism 
from co-operatives (which are generally more productive than 
capitalist firms) while at the same time forcing down wages for 
all workers as the demand for labour is lower than it would 
otherwise be. This, in turn, allows capitalists to use the fear 
of the sack to extract higher levels of surplus value from 
employees, so consolidating capitalist power (within and outwith 
the workplace) and expansion (increasing set-up costs and so 
creating oligarchic markets dominated by a few firms). In addition, 
high interest rates transfer income directly from producers to banks. 
Credit and money are both used as weapons in the class struggle. This 
is why, again and again, we see the ruling class call for centralised 
banking and use state action (from the direct regulation of money 
itself, to the attempted management of its flows by the manipulation
of the interest) in the face of repeated threats to the nature (and 
role) of money within capitalism. 

The credit monopoly has other advantages for the elite. The 1980s 
were marked by a rising debt burden on households as well as the
increased concentration of wealth in the US. The two are linked. 
Due to "the decline in real hourly wages, and the stagnation in 
household incomes, the middle and lower classes have borrowed 
more to stay in place" and they have "borrowed from the very rich
who have [become] richer." By 1997, US households spent $1 trillion
(or 17% of the after-tax incomes) on debt service. "This represents
a massive upward redistribution of income." And why did they borrow?
The bottom 40% of the income distribution "borrowed to compensate
for stagnant or falling incomes" while the upper 20% borrowed "mainly
to invest." Thus "consumer credit can be thought of as a way to
sustain mass consumption in the face of stagnant or falling wages.
But there's an additional social and political bonus, from the 
point of view of the creditor class: it reduces pressure for
higher wages by allowing people to buy goods they couldn't
otherwise afford. It helps to nourish both the appearance and
reality of a middle-class standard of living in a time of
polarisation. And debt can be a great conservatising force;
with a large monthly mortgage and/or MasterCard bill, strikes 
and other forms of troublemaking look less appealing than they
would other wise." [Doug Henwood, _Wall Street_, pp. 64-6]

Thus credit "is an important form of social coercion; mortgaged
workers are more pliable." [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 232] Money is 
power and any means which lessens that power by increasing the 
options of workers is considered a threat by the capitalist class 
-- whether it is tight labour markets, state provided unemployment 
benefit, or cheap, self-organised, credit -- will be resisted. 
The credit monopoly can, therefore, only be fought as part of a 
broader attack on all forms of capitalist social power.

In summary, the credit monopoly, by artificially restricting the 
option to work for ourselves, ensures we work for a boss while 
also enriching the few at the expense of the many.

The land monopoly consists of enforcement by government of land 
titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and use. It also 
includes making the squatting of abandoned housing and other forms 
of property illegal. This leads to ground-rent, by which landlords 
get payment for letting others use the land they own but do not 
actually cultivate or use. It also allows the ownership and control 
of natural resources like oil, gas, coal and timber. This monopoly 
is particularly exploitative as the owner cannot claim to have 
created the land or its resources. It was available to all until 
the landlord claimed it by fencing it off and barring others from 
using it.

Until the nineteenth century, the control of land was probably 
the single most important form of privilege by which working people 
were forced to accept less than its product as a wage. While this 
monopoly is less important in a modern capitalist society (as few 
people know how to farm), it still plays a role (particularly in
terms of ownership of natural resources). At a minimum, every
home and workplace needs land on which to be built. Thus while
cultivation of land has become less important, the use of land 
remains crucial. The land monopoly, therefore, ensures that working
people find no land to cultivate, no space to set up shop and no 
place to sleep without first having to pay a landlord a sum for
the privilege of setting foot on the land they own but neither
created nor use. At best, the worker has mortgaged their life for
decades to get their wee bit of soil or, at worse, paid their 
rent and remained as property-less as before. Either way, the 
landlords are richer for the exchange.

Moreover, the land monopoly did play an important role in *creating* 
capitalism (also see section F.8.3). This took two main forms. Firstly,
the state enforced the ownership of large estates in the hands of a
single family. Taking the best land by force, these landlords turned
vast tracks of land into parks and hunting grounds so forcing the 
peasants little option but to huddle together on what remained. Access
to superior land was therefore only possible by paying a rent for the
privilege, if at all. Thus an elite claimed ownership of vacant lands, 
and by controlling access to it (without themselves ever directly 
occupying or working it) they controlled the labouring classes of the
time. Secondly, the ruling elite also simply stole land which had
traditionally been owned by the community. This was called enclosure,
the process by which common land was turned into private property.
Economist William Lazonick summaries this process:

"The reorganisation of agricultural land [the enclosure movement] . . . 
inevitably undermined the viability of traditional peasant agriculture . . .
[it] created a sizeable labour force of disinherited peasants with only
tenuous attachments to the land. To earn a living, many of these peasants
turned to 'domestic industry' - the production of goods in their cottages
. . . It was the eighteenth century expansion of domestic industry . . . 
that laid the basis for the British Industrial Revolution. The emergence 
of labour-saving machine technology transformed . . . textile manufacture
. . . and the factory replaced the family home as the predominant site of
production." [_Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy_, 
pp. 3-4]

By being able to "legally" bar people from "their" property, the landlord
class used the land monopoly to ensure the creation of a class of people 
with nothing to sell but their labour (i.e. liberty). Land was taken from 
those who traditionally used it, violating common rights, and it was used 
by the landlord to produce for their own profit (more recently, a similar 
process has been going on in the Third World as well). Personal occupancy 
was replaced by landlordism and agricultural wage slavery, and so "the 
Enclosure Acts . . . reduced the agricultural population to misery, 
placed them at the mercy of the landowners, and forced a great number of 
them to migrate to the towns where, as proletarians, they were delivered 
to the mercy of the middle-class manufacturers." [Peter Kropotkin, _The 
Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 117-8] 

A variation of this process took place in countries like America,
where the state took over ownership of vast tracks of land and then
sold it to farmers. As Howard Zinn notes, the Homestead Act "gave 160
acres of western land, unoccupied and publicly owned, to anyone who
would cultivate it for fives years. Anyone willing to pay $1.25 an
acre could buy a homestead. Few ordinary people had the $200 necessary
to do this; speculators moved in and bought up much of the land."
[_A People's History of the United States_, p. 233] Those farmers 
who did pay the money often had to go into debt to do so, placing an
extra burden on their labour. Vast tracks of land were also given to
railroad and other companies either directly (by gift or by selling 
cheap) or by lease (in the form of privileged access to state owned
land for the purpose of extracting raw materials like lumber and oil).
Either way, access to land was restricted and those who actually did
work it ended up paying a tribute to the landlord in one form or 
another (either directly in rent or indirectly by repaying a loan).

This was the land monopoly in action (also see sections F.8.3, F.8.4 and
F.8.5 for more details) and from it sprang the tools and equipment monopoly 
as domestic industry could not survive in the face of industrial capitalism. 
Confronted with competition from industrial production growing rich on the 
profits produced from cheap labour, the ability of workers to own their 
own means of production decreased over time. From a situation where most
workers owned their own tools and, consequently, worked for themselves,
we now face an economic regime were the tools and equipment needed
for work are owned by a capitalists and, consequently, workers now 
work for a boss.

The tools and equipment monopoly is similar to the land monopoly as 
it is based upon the capitalist denying workers access to their
capital unless the worker pays tribute to the owner for using it. 
While capital is "simply stored-up labour which has already received 
its pay in full" and so "the lender of capital is entitled to its 
return intact, and nothing more" (to use Tucker's words), due to 
legal privilege the capitalist is in a position to charge a "fee" 
for its use. This is because, with the working class legally barred 
from both the land and available capital (the means of life), members 
of that class have little option but to agree to wage contracts which 
let capitalists extract a "fee" for the use of their equipment (see 
section B.3.3). 

Thus the capital-monopoly is, like the land monopoly, enforced by
the state and its laws. This is most clearly seen if you look at
the main form in which such capital is held today, the corporation.
This is nothing more than a legal construct. "Over the last 150 
years," notes Joel Bakan, "the corporation has risen from relative 
obscurity to becomes the world's dominant economic institution." 
The law has been changed to give corporations "limited liability" 
and other perks in order "to attract valuable incorporation business 
. . . by jettisoning unpopular [to capitalists] restrictions from 
. . . corporate laws." Finally, the courts "fully transformed the 
corporation onto a 'person,' with its own identity . . . and 
empowered, like a real person, to conduct business in its own name, 
acquire assets, employ workers, pay taxes, and go to court to assert 
its rights and defend its actions." In America, this was achieved 
using the 14th Amendment (which was passed to end slavery!). In 
summary, the corporation "is not an independent 'person' with 
its own rights, needs, and desires . . . It is a state-created 
tool for advancing social and economic policy." [_The Corporation_, 
p. 5, p. 13, p. 16 and p. 158] 

Nor can it be said that this monopoly is the product of hard work
and saving. The capital-monopoly is a recent development and how 
this situation developed is usually ignored. If not glossed over as 
irrelevant, some fairy tale is spun in which a few bright people 
saved and worked hard to accumulate capital and the lazy majority 
flocked to be employed by these (almost superhuman) geniuses. In 
reality, the initial capital for investing in industry came from 
wealth plundered from overseas or from the proceeds of feudal and 
landlord exploitation. In addition, as we discuss in section F.8, 
extensive state intervention was required to create a class of wage 
workers and ensure that capital was in the best position to exploit 
them. This explicit state intervention was scaled down once the
capital-monopoly found its own feet. 

Once this was achieved, state action became less explicit and becomes
focused around defending the capitalists' property rights. This is
because the "fee" charged to workers was partly reinvested into capital, 
which reduced the prices of goods, ruining domestic industry and so 
narrowing the options available to workers in the economy. In addition, 
investment also increased the set-up costs of potential competitors, 
which continued the dispossession of the working class from the means 
of production as these "natural" barriers to entry into markets ensured 
few members of that class had the necessary funds to create co-operative 
workplaces of appropriate size. So while the land monopoly was essential 
to create capitalism, the "tools and equipment" monopoly that sprang 
from it soon became the mainspring of the system. 

In this way usury became self-perpetuating, with apparently "free exchanges" 
being the means by which capitalist domination survives. In other words, 
"past initiations of force" combined with the current state protection of 
property ensure that capitalist domination of society continues with only
the use of "defensive" force (i.e. violence used to protect the power of
property owners against unions, strikes, occupations, etc.). The "fees" 
extracted from previous generations of workers has ensured that the 
current one is in no position to re-unite itself with the means of life 
by "free competition" (in other words, the paying of usury ensures that 
usury continues). Needless to say, the surplus produced by this generation 
will be used to increase the capital stock and so ensure the dispossession 
of future generations and so usury becomes self-perpetuating. And, of course, 
state protection of "property" against "theft" by working people ensures 
that property remains theft and the *real* thieves keep their plunder.

As far as the "ideas" monopoly is concerned, this has been used to enrich 
capitalist corporations at the expense of the general public and the 
inventor. Patents make an astronomical price difference. Until the early 
1970s, for example, Italy did not recognise drug patents. As a result, 
Roche Products charged the British National Health Service over 40 times 
more for patented components of Librium and Valium than charged by 
competitors in Italy. As Tucker argued, the patent monopoly "consists 
in protecting investors and authors against competition for a period
long enough to enable them to extort from the people a reward enormously
in excess of the labour measure of their services, -- in other words,
in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years and
facts of nature, and the power to extract tribute from others for 
the use of this natural wealth which should be open to all." [_The 
Individualist Anarchists_, p. 86]

The net effect of this can be terrible. The Uruguay Round of global
trade negotiations "strengthen intellectual property rights. American
and other Western drug companies could now stop drug companies in 
India and Brazil from 'stealing' their intellectual property. But 
these drug companies in the developing world were making these 
life-saving drugs available to their citizens at a fraction of the 
price at which the drugs were sold by the Western drug companies
. . . Profits of the Western drug companies would go up . . . but
the increases profits from sales in the developing world were small,
since few could afford the drugs . . . [and so] thousands were 
effectively condemned to death, becomes governments and individuals
in developing countries could no longer pay the high prices demanded."
[Joseph Stiglitz, _Globalisation and its discontents_, pp. 7-8] While
international outrage over AIDS drugs eventually forced the drug
companies  to sell the drugs at cost price in late 2001, the 
underlying intellectual property rights regime was still in place.

The irony that this regime was created in a process allegedly 
about trade liberalisation should not go unnoticed. "Intellectual 
property rights," as Noam Chomsky correctly points out, "are a
protectionist measure, they have nothing to do with free trade 
-- in fact, they're the exact *opposite* of free trade." 
[_Understanding Power_, p. 282] The fundamental injustice of the
"ideas monopoly" is exacerbated by the fact that many of these
patented products are the result of government funding of research 
and development, with private industry simply reaping monopoly 
profits from technology it did not spend a penny to develop. In
fact, extending government aid for research and development is
considered an important and acceptable area of state intervention 
by governments and companies verbally committed to the neo-liberal
agenda.

The "ideas monopoly" actually works against its own rationale. Patents 
suppress innovation as much as they encourage it. The research scientists 
who actually do the work of inventing are required to sign over patent 
rights as a condition of employment, while patents and industrial security 
programs used to bolster competitive advantage on the market actually 
prevent the sharing of information, so reducing innovation (this evil is
being particularly felt in universities as the new "intellectual property
rights" regime is spreading there). Further research stalls as the 
incremental innovation based on others' patents is hindered while the
patent holder can rest on their laurels as they have no fear of a 
competitor improving the invention. They also hamper technical progress 
because, by their very nature, preclude the possibility of independent 
discovery. Also, of course, some companies own a patent explicitly not 
to use it but simply to prevent someone else from so doing.

As Noam Chomsky notes, today trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA "impose 
a mixture of liberalisation and protection, going far beyond trade, 
designed to keep wealth and power firmly in the hands of the masters." 
Thus "investor rights are to be protected and enhanced" and a key 
demand "is increased protection for 'intellectual property,' including 
software and patents, with patent rights extending to process as well 
as product" in order to "ensure that US-based corporations control 
the technology of the future" and so "locking the poor majority 
into dependence on high-priced products of Western agribusiness, 
biotechnology, the pharmaceutical industry and so on." [_World Orders,
Old and New_, p. 183, p. 181 and pp. 182-3] This means that if a
company discovers a new, more efficient, way of producing a drug 
then the "ideas monopoly" will stop them and so "these are not only
highly protectionist measures . . . they're a blow *against* economic
efficiency and technological process -- that just shows you how much
'free trade' really is involved in all of this." [Chomsky, _Understanding
Power_, p. 282]

All of which means that the corporations (and their governments) in 
the developed world are trying to prevent emergence of competition by 
controlling the flow of technology to others. The "free trade" 
agreements are being used to create monopolies for their products 
and this will either block or slow down the rise of competition. While
corporate propagandists piously denounce "anti-globalisation" activists 
as enemies of the developing world, seeking to use trade barriers to 
maintain their (Western) lifestyles at the expense of the poor nations,
the reality is different. The "ideas monopoly" is being aggressively 
used to either suppress or control the developing world's economic
activity in order to keep the South as, effectively, one big sweatshop.
As well as reaping monopoly profits directly, the threat of "low-wage"
competition from the developing world can be used to keep the wage 
slaves of the developed world in check and so maintain profit levels 
at home.

This is not all. Like other forms of private property, the usury 
produced by it helps ensure it becomes self-perpetuating. By creating 
"legal" absolute monopolies and reaping the excess profits these 
create, capitalists not only enrich themselves at the expense of 
others, they also ensure their dominance in the market. Some of 
the excess profits reaped due to patents and copyrights are invested 
back into the company, securing advantages by creating various 
"natural" barriers to entry for potential competitors. Thus patents 
impact on business structure, encouraging the formation and dominance
of big business. 

Looking at the end of the nineteenth century, the ideas monopoly played
a key role in promoting cartels and, as a result, laid the foundation 
for what was to become corporate capitalism in the twentieth century.
Patents were used on a massive scale to promote concentration of capital, 
erect barriers to entry, and maintain a monopoly of advanced technology 
in the hands of western corporations. The exchange or pooling of patents 
between competitors, historically, has been a key method for the creation 
of cartels in industry. This was true especially of the electrical 
appliance, communications, and chemical industries. For example, by 
the 1890s, two large companies, General Electric and Westinghouse, 
"monopolised a substantial part of the American electrical manufacturing 
industry, and their success had been in large measure the result of
patent control." The two competitors simply pooled their patents and 
"yet another means of patent and market control had developed: corporate
patent-pooling agreements. Designed to minimise the expense and 
uncertainties of conflict between the giants, they greatly reinforced 
the position of each vis--vis lesser competitors and new entrants into
the field." [David Noble, _American By Design_, p. 10]

While the patent system is, in theory, promoted to defend the small
scale inventor, in reality it is corporate interests that benefit. As 
David Noble points out, the "inventor, the original focus of the patent 
system, tended to increasingly to 'abandon' his patent in exchange for 
corporate security; he either sold or licensed his patent rights to 
industrial corporations or assigned them to the company of which
he became an employee, bartering his genius for a salary. In addition, 
by means of patent control gained through purchase, consolidation, 
patent pools, and cross-licensing agreements, as well as by regulated 
patent production through systematic industrial research, the 
corporations steadily expanded their 'monopoly of monopolies.'" 
As well as this, corporations used "patents to circumvent anti-trust 
laws." This reaping of monopoly profits at the expense of the customer 
made such "tremendous strides" between 1900 and 1929 and "were of such 
proportions as to render subsequent judicial and legislative effects 
to check corporate monopoly through patent control too little too late." 
[Op. Cit., p. 87, p. 84 and p. 88]

Things have changed little since Edwin Prindle, a corporate patent lawyer, 
wrote in 1906 that:

"Patents are the best and most effective means of controlling competition. 
They occasionally give absolute command of the market, enabling their 
owner to name the price without regard to the cost of production. . . 
Patents are the only legal form of absolute monopoly . . . The power
which a patentee has to dictate the conditions under which his monopoly
may be exercised had been used to form trade agreements throughout 
practically entire industries." [quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 89]

Thus, the ruling class, by means of the state, is continually trying 
to develop new forms of private property by creating artificial 
scarcities and monopolies, e.g. by requiring expensive licenses to 
engage in particular types of activities, such as broadcasting or
producing certain kinds of medicines or products.  In the "Information 
Age," usury (use fees) from intellectual property are becoming a much 
more important source of  income for elites, as reflected in the 
attention paid to strengthening mechanisms for enforcing copyright 
and patents in the recent GATT agreements, or in US pressure on foreign 
countries (like China) to respect such laws. 

This allows corporations to destroy potential competitors and ensure 
that their prices can be set as high as possible (and monopoly profits 
maintained indefinitely). It also allows them to enclose ever more of 
the common inheritance of humanity, place it under private ownership 
and charge the previous users money to gain access to it. As Chomsky
notes, "U.S. corporations must control seeds, plant varieties, drugs,
and the means of life generally." [_World Orders, Old and New_, p. 183] 
This has been termed "bio-piracy" (a better term may be the new 
enclosures) and it is a process by which "international companies
[are] patenting traditional medicines or foods." They "seek to make 
money from 'resources' and knowledge that rightfully belongs to the
developing countries" and "in so doing, they squelch domestic firms
that have long provided the products. While it is not clear whether
these patents would hold up in court if they were effectively 
challenged, it is clear that the less developed countries many not
have the legal and financial resources required to challenge the
patent." [Joseph Stiglitz, Op. Cit., p. 246] They may also not 
withstand the economic pressures they may experience if the 
international markets conclude that such acts indicate a regime
that is less that business friendly. That the people who were 
dependent on the generic drugs or plants can no longer afford them 
is as irrelevant as the impediments to scientific and technological 
advance they create.

In other words, capitalists desire to skew the "free market" in their
favour by ensuring that the law reflects and protects their interests, 
namely their "property rights." By this process they ensure that
co-operative  tendencies within society are crushed by state-supported
"market forces." As Noam Chomsky puts it, modern capitalism is "state
protection and public subsidy for the rich, market discipline for the
poor." ["Rollback, Part I", _Z Magazine_]  Self-proclaimed defenders of
"free market" capitalism are usually nothing  of the kind, while the few
who actually support it only object to the "public subsidy" aspect of
modern capitalism and happily support state protection for property
rights. 

All these monopolies seek to enrich the capitalist (and increase their 
capital stock) at the expense of working people, to restrict their ability 
to undermine the ruling elites power and wealth. All aim to ensure that any
option we have to work for ourselves (either individually or collectively) 
is restricted by tilting the playing field against us, making sure that we 
have little option but to sell our labour on the "free market" and be 
exploited. In other words, the various monopolies make sure that "natural" 
barriers to entry (see section C.4) are created, leaving the heights of
the economy in the control of big business while alternatives to capitalism
are marginalised at its fringes.
 
So it is these kinds of property and the authoritarian social relationships 
that they create which the state exists to protect. It should be noted that
converting private to state ownership (i.e. nationalisation) does not
fundamentally change the nature of property relationships; it just
removes private capitalists and replaces them with bureaucrats (as we
discuss in section B.3.5).

B.3.3 Why is property exploitative? 

To answer this question, consider the monopoly of productive "tools 
and equipment." This monopoly, obtained by the class of industrial 
capitalists, allows this class in effect to charge workers a "fee" 
for the privilege of using the monopolised tools and equipment. 

This occurs because property, in Proudhon words, "excommunicates" 
the working class. This means that private property creates a class 
of people who have no choice but to work for a boss in order to pay 
the landlord rent or buy the goods they, as a class, produce but do 
not own. The state enforces property rights in land, workplaces
and so on, meaning that the owner can bar others from using them and
enforce *their* rules on those they do let use "their" property. So 
the boss "gives you a job; that is, permission to work in the factory 
or mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. 
And for that permission you help to support him for . . . as long as 
you work for him." [Alexander Berkman, _What is Anarchism?_, p. 14] 
This is called wage labour and is, for anarchists, the defining 
characteristic of capitalism.

This class of people who are dependent on wages to survive was 
sometimes called the "proletariat" by nineteenth century anarchists. 
Today most anarchists usually call it the "working class" as most 
workers in modern capitalist nations are wage workers rather than 
peasants or artisans (i.e. self-employed workers who are also 
exploited by the private property system, but in different ways). 
It should also be noted that property used in this way (i.e. to 
employ and exploit other people's labour) is also called "capital"
by anarchists and other socialists. Thus, for anarchists, private 
property generates a class system, a regime in which the few, due 
to their ownership of wealth and the means of producing it, rule 
over the many who own very little (see section B.7 for more 
discussion of classes). 

This ensures that the few can profit from the work of others:

"In the capitalist system the working man cannot [in general]
work for himself . . . So . . . you must find an employer. You 
work for him . . . In the capitalist system the whole working 
class sells its labour power to the employing class. The workers 
build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. 
The employers keep the factories, the machinery, the tools and 
the goods for themselves as *their profit.* The workers only get 
their wages . . . Though the workers, as a class, have built the 
factories, a slice of their daily labour is taken from them for 
the privilege of *using* those factories . . . Though the workers
have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their
daily labour is taken from them for the privilege of *using*
those tools and machinery . . .

"Can you guess now why the wisdom of Proudhon said that *the
possessions of the rich are stolen property*? Stolen from the
producer, the worker." [Berkman, Op. Cit., pp. 7-8]

Thus the daily theft/exploitation associated with capitalism is 
dependent on the distribution of wealth and private property (i.e. 
the initial theft of the means of life, the land, workplaces 
and housing by the owning class). Due to the dispossession of the 
vast majority of the population from the means of life, capitalists 
are in an ideal position to charge a "use-fee" for the capital they 
own, but neither produced nor use. Having little option, workers agree 
to contracts within which they forfeit their autonomy during work and 
the product of that work. This results in capitalists having access 
to a "commodity" (labour) that can potentially produce more value 
than it gets paid for in wages. 

For this situation to arise, for wage labour to exist, workers must 
not own or control the means of production they use. As a consequence, 
are controlled by those who do own the means of production they use
during work hours. As their labour is owned by their boss and as 
labour cannot be separated from the person who does it, the boss 
effectively owns the worker for the duration of the working day and, 
as a consequence, exploitation becomes possible. This is because 
during working hours, the owner can dictate (within certain limits 
determined by worker resistance and solidarity as well as objective 
conditions, such as the level of unemployment within an industry or 
country) the organisation, level, duration, conditions, pace and 
intensity of work, and so the amount of output (which the owner 
has sole rights over even though they did not produce it). 

Thus the "fee" (or "surplus value") is created by owners paying 
workers less than the full value added by their labour to the 
products or services they create for the firm. The capitalist's 
profit is thus the difference between this "surplus value," 
created by and appropriated from labour, minus the firm's overhead 
and cost of raw materials (See also section C.2 -- "Where do 
profits come from?").

So property is exploitative because it allows a surplus to be 
monopolised by the owners. Property creates hierarchical 
relationships within the workplace (the "tools and equipment 
monopoly" might better be called the "power monopoly") and as 
in any hierarchical system, those with the power use it to 
protect and further their own interests at the expense of 
others. Within the workplace there is resistance by workers 
to this oppression and exploitation, which the "hierarchical 
. . . relations of the capitalist enterprise are designed to 
resolve this conflict in favour of the representatives of 
capital." [William Lazonick, Op. Cit., p. 184] 

Needless to say, the state is always on hand to protect the rights of 
property and management against the actions of the dispossessed. When 
it boils down to it, it is the existence of the state as protector of 
the "power monopoly" that allows it to exist at all. 

So, capitalists are able to appropriate this surplus value from workers 
solely because they own the means of production, not because they earn it 
by doing productive work themselves. Of course some capitalists *may* also
contribute to production, in which case they are in fairness entitled to
the amount of value added to the firm's output by their own labour; but
owners typically pay themselves much more than this, and are able to 
do so because the state guarantees them that right as property owners 
(which is unsurprising, as they alone have knowledge of the firms inputs 
and outputs and, like all people in unaccountable positions, abuse that 
power -- which is partly why anarchists support direct democracy as the 
essential counterpart of free agreement, for no one in power can be trusted 
not to prefer their own interests over those subject to their decisions).
And of course many capitalists hire managers to run their businesses for 
them, thus collecting income for doing nothing except owning.

Capitalists' profits, then, are a form of state-supported exploitation. 
This is equally true of the interest collected by bankers and rents
collected by landlords. Without some form of state, these forms of
exploitation would be impossible, as the monopolies on which they depend
could not be maintained. For instance, in the absence of state troops 
and police, workers would simply take over and operate factories for
themselves, thus preventing capitalists from appropriating an unjust 
share of the surplus they create.

B.3.4 Can private property be justified?

No. Even though a few supporters of capitalism recognise that private 
property, particularly in land, was created by the use of force, most 
maintain that private property is just. One common defence of private
property is found in the work of Robert Nozick (a supporter of "free
market" capitalism). For Nozick, the use of force makes acquisition 
illegitimate and so any current title to the property is illegitimate 
(in other words, theft and trading in stolen goods does not make 
ownership of these goods legal). So, if the initial acquisition of 
land was illegitimate then all current titles are also illegitimate. 
And since private ownership of land is the basis of capitalism, 
capitalism itself would be rendered illegal.

To get round this problem, Nozick utilises the work of Locke ("The Lockean
Proviso") which can be summarised as:

	1. People own themselves and, consequently, their labour.
	2. The world is initially owned in common (or unowned in Nozick's
	   case.)
	3. By working on common (or unowned) resources, people turn it
	   into their own property because they own their own labour. 
	4. You can acquire absolute rights over a larger than average
	   share in the world, if you do not worsen the condition of
	   others.
	5. Once people have appropriated private property, a free market 
	   in capital and labour is morally required.

However, there are numerous flaws in this theory. Most obvious is
why does the mixing of something you own (labour) with something
owned by all (or unowned) turn it in your property? Surely it would
be as likely to simply mean that you have lost the labour you have
expended (for example, few would argue that you owned a river
simply because you swam or fished in it). Even if we assume the
validity of the argument and acknowledge that by working on a
piece of land creates ownership, why assume that this ownership
must be based on *capitalist* property rights? Many cultures 
have recognised no such "absolute" forms of property, admitted
the right of property in what is produced but not the land itself.

As such, the assumption that expending labour turns the soil into
private property does not automatically hold. You could equally argue 
the opposite, namely that labour, while producing ownership of the
goods created, does not produce property in land, only possession. 
In the words of Proudhon:

"I maintain that the possessor is paid for his trouble and
industry . . . but that he acquires no right to the land. 'Let
the labourer have the fruits of his labour.' Very good; but I do 
not understand that property in products carries with it property
in raw material. Does the skill of the fisherman, who on the same 
coast can catch more fish than his fellows, make him proprietor 
of the fishing-grounds? Can the expertness of a hunter ever be 
regarded as a property-title to a game-forest? The analogy is 
perfect, -- the industrious cultivator finds the reward of his 
industry in the abundancy and superiority of his crop. If he has 
made improvements in the soil, he has the possessor's right of 
preference. Never, under any circumstances, can he be allowed to 
claim a property-title to the soil which he cultivates, on the
ground of his skill as a cultivator.

"To change possession into property, something is needed besides 
labour, without which a man would cease to be proprietor as soon 
as he ceased to be a laborer. Now, the law bases property upon 
immemorial, unquestionable possession; that is, prescription. 
Labour is only the sensible sign, the physical act, by which 
occupation is manifested. If, then, the cultivator remains 
proprietor after he has ceased to labor and produce; if his
possession, first conceded, then tolerated, finally becomes 
inalienable, -- it happens by permission of the civil law, and 
by virtue of the principle of occupancy. So true is this, that 
there is not a bill of sale, not a farm lease, not an annuity, 
but implies it . . .

"Man has created every thing -- every thing save the material 
itself. Now, I maintain that this material he can only possess 
and use, on condition of permanent labor, -- granting, for the 
time being, his right of property in things which he has produced.

"This, then, is the first point settled: property in product, if 
we grant so much, does not carry with it property in the means of 
production; that seems to me to need no further demonstration. 
There is no difference between the soldier who possesses his arms, 
the mason who possesses the materials committed to his care, the 
fisherman who possesses the water, the hunter who possesses the 
fields and forests, and the cultivator who possesses the lands: all, 
if you say so, are proprietors of their products -- not one is
proprietor of the means of production. The right to product is 
exclusive --*jus in re*; the right to means is common -- 
*jus ad rem*." [_What is Property?_, pp. 120-1]

Proudhon's argument has far more historical validity than Nozick's.
Common ownership of land combined with personal use has been the
dominant form of property rights for tens of thousands of years
while Nozick's "natural law" theory dates back to Locke's work 
in the seventh century (itself an attempt to defend the encroachment
of capitalist norms of ownership over previous common law ones). 
Nozick's theory only appears valid because we live in a society 
where the dominant form of property rights are capitalist. As 
such, Nozick is begging the question -- he is assuming the thing 
he is trying to prove. 

Ignoring these obvious issues, what of Nozick's actual argument? 

The first thing to note is that it is a fairy tale, it is a myth. 
The current property system and its distribution of resources and 
ownership rights is a product of thousands of years of conflict,
coercion and violence. As such, given Nozick's arguments, it is 
illegitimate and the current owners have no right to deprive others
of access to them or to object to taxation or expropriation. However,
it is precisely this conclusion which Nozick seeks to eliminate
by means of his story. By presenting an ahistoric thought experiment,
he hopes to convince the reader to ignore the actual history of
property in order to defend the current owners of property from
redistribution. Nozick's theory is only taken seriously because,
firstly, it assumes the very thing it is trying to justify (i.e.
capitalist property rights) and, as such, has a superficial 
coherence as a result and, secondly, it has obvious political 
utility for the rich.

The second thing to note is that the argument itself is deeply
flawed. To see why, take (as an example) two individuals who 
share land in common. Nozick allows for one individual to claim 
the land as their own as long as the "process normally giving 
rise to a permanent bequeathable property right in a previously 
unowned thing will not do so if the position of others no longer 
at liberty to use the thing is therefore worsened." [_Anarchy, 
State and Utopia_, p. 178] Given this, one of our two land sharers 
can appropriate the land as long as they can provide the other
with a wage greater than what they were originally producing.
If this situation is achieved then, according to Nozick, the
initial appropriation was just and so are all subsequent market
exchanges. In this way, the unowned world becomes owned and a 
market system based on capitalist property rights in productive 
resources (the land) and labour develop. 

Interestingly, for a ideology that calls itself "libertarian" 
Nozick's theory defines "worse off" in terms purely of material 
welfare, compared to the conditions that existed within the society 
based upon common use. However, the fact is if one person appropriated 
the land that the other cannot live off the remaining land then we 
have a problem. The other person has no choice but to agree to become
employed by the landowner. The fact that the new land owner offers the 
other a wage to work their land that exceeds what the new wage slave 
originally produced may meet the "Lockean Proviso" misses the point. 
The important issue is that the new wage slave has no option but to 
work for another and, as a consequence, becomes subject to that
person's authority. In other words, being "worse off" in terms 
of liberty (i.e. autonomy or self-government) is irrelevant for 
Nozick, a *very* telling position to take. 

Nozick claims to place emphasis on self-ownership in his ideology 
because we are separate individuals, each with our own life to lead. 
It is strange, therefore, to see that Nozick does not emphasise 
people's ability to act on their own conception of themselves in 
his account of appropriation. Indeed, there is no objection to an 
appropriation that puts someone in an unnecessary and undesirable 
position of subordination and dependence on the will of others.

Notice that the fact that individuals are now subject to the decisions 
of other individuals is not considered by Nozick in assessing the 
fairness of the appropriation. The fact that the creation of private 
property results in the denial of important freedoms for wage slaves 
(namely, the wage slave has no say over the status of the land they 
had been utilising and no say over how their labour is used). Before 
the creation of private property, all managed their own work, had 
self-government in all aspects of their lives. After the appropriation, 
the new wage slave has no such liberty and indeed must accept the 
conditions of employment within which they relinquish control over 
how they spend much of their time. That this is issue is irrelevant 
for the Lockean Proviso shows how concerned about liberty capitalism 
actually is.

Considering Nozick's many claims in favour of self-ownership and why
it is important, you would think that the autonomy of the newly
dispossessed wage slaves would be important to him. However, no such
concern is to be found -- the autonomy of wage slaves is treated as if
it were irrelevant. Nozick claims that a concern for people's freedom to 
lead their own lives underlies his theory of unrestricted property-rights,
but, this apparently does not apply to wage slaves. His justification
for the creation of private property treats only the autonomy of the
land owner as relevant. However, as Proudhon rightly argues:

"if the liberty of man is sacred, it is equally sacred in all 
individuals; that, if it needs property for its objective action, 
that is, for its life, the appropriation of material is equally 
necessary for all . . . Does it not follow that if one individual 
cannot prevent another . . . from appropriating an amount of material 
equal to his own, no more can he prevent individuals to come." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 84-85]

The implications of Nozick's argument become clear once we move 
beyond the initial acts of appropriation to the situation of a 
developed capitalist economy. In such a situation, *all* of the
available useful land has been appropriated. There is massive
differences in who owns what and these differences are passed on
to the next generation. Thus we have a (minority) class of people 
who own the world and a class of people (the majority) who can
only gain access to the means of life on terms acceptable to the
former. How can the majority really be said to own themselves if
they may do nothing without the permission of others (the owning
minority).

Under capitalism people are claimed to own themselves, but this is 
purely formal as most people do not have independent access to resources.
And as they have to use other peoples' resources, they become under the
control of those who own the resources. In other words, private property
reduces the autonomy of the majority of the population and creates a
regime of authority which has many similarities to enslavement. As John
Stuart Mill put it:

"No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority
are so by force of property; they are still chained to a place, to an
occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred
by the accident of birth to both the enjoyments, and from the mental and
moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently
of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against
which mankind have hitherto struggles, the poor are not wrong in 
believing." ["Chapters on Socialism", _Principles of Political 
Economy_, pp. 377-8]

Capitalism, even though claiming formal self-ownership, in fact not only
restricts the self-determination of working class people, it also makes
them a resource for others. Those who enter the market after others 
have appropriated all the available property are limited to charity or
working for others. The latter, as we discuss in section C, results in
exploitation as the worker's labour is used to enrich others. Working
people are compelled to co-operate with the current scheme of property
and are forced to benefit others. This means that self-determination 
requires resources as well as rights over one's physical and mental 
being. Concern for self-determination (i.e. meaningful self-ownership) 
leads us to common property plus workers' control of production and so 
some form of libertarian socialism - *not* private property and
capitalism.

And, of course, the appropriation of the land requires a state to
defend it against the dispossessed as well as continuous interference 
in people's lives. Left to their own devices, people would freely use 
the resources around them which they considered unjustly appropriated 
by others and it is only continuous state intervention that prevents 
then from violating Nozick's principles of justice (to use Nozick's own 
terminology, the "Lockean Proviso" is a patterned theory, his claims 
otherwise not withstanding).

In addition, we should note that private ownership by one person presupposes 
non-ownership by others ("we who belong to the proletaire class, property
excommunicates us!" [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 105]) and so the "free market" 
restricts as well as creates liberties just as any other economic system. 
Hence the claim that capitalism constitutes "economic liberty" is obviously 
false. In fact, it is *based* upon denying liberty for the vast majority 
during work hours (as well as having serious impacts on liberty outwith 
work hours due to the effects of concentrations of wealth upon society).

Perhaps Nozick can claim that the increased material benefits of private
property makes the acquisition justified. However, it seems strange that
a theory supporting "liberty" should consider well off slaves to be better
than poor free men and women. As Nozick claims that the wage slaves consent
is not required for the initial acquisition, so perhaps he can claim that 
the gain in material welfare outweighs the loss of autonomy and so allows
the initial act as an act of paternalism. But as Nozick opposes paternalism
when it restricts private property rights he can hardly invoke it when
it is required to generate these rights. And if we exclude paternalism
and emphasise autonomy (as Nozick claims he does elsewhere in his theory),
then justifying the initial creation of private property becomes much more
difficult, if not impossible.

And if each owner's title to their property includes the historical
shadow of the Lockean Proviso on appropriation, then such titles are
invalid. Any title people have over unequal resources will be qualified
by the facts that "property is theft" and that "property is despotism."
The claim that private property is economic liberty is obviously untrue,
as is the claim that private property can be justified in terms of 
anything except "might is right."

In summary, "[i]f the right of life is equal, the right of labour is
equal, and so is the right of occupancy." This means that "those who 
do not possess today are proprietors by the same title as those who
do possess; but instead of inferring therefrom that property should be
shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire
abolition." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 77 and p. 66] Simply put, if it
is right for the initial appropriation of resources to be made then,
by that very same reason, it is right for others in the same and 
subsequent generations to abolish private property in favour of a
system which respects the liberty of all rather than a few. 

For more anarchist analysis on private property and why it cannot be
justified (be it by occupancy, labour, natural right, or whatever)
consult Proudhon's classic work _What is Property?_. For further
discussion on capitalist property rights see section F.4.

B.3.5 Is state owned property different from private property?

No, far from it. 

State ownership should not be confused with the common or public 
ownership implied by the concept of "use rights." The state is a
hierarchical instrument of coercion and, as we discussed in
section B.2, is marked by power being concentrated in a few hands.
As the general populate is, by design, excluded from decision 
making within it this means that the state apparatus has control 
over the property in question. As the general public and those who
use a piece of property are excluded from controlling it, state
property is identical to private property. Instead of capitalists
owning it, the state bureaucracy does. 

This can easily be seen from the example of such so-called "socialist" 
states as the Soviet Union or China. To show why, we need only quote
a market socialist who claims that China is not capitalist. According
to David Schweickart a society is capitalist if, "[i]n order to gain
access to means of production (without which no one can work), most
people must contract with people who own (or represent the owners of)
such means. In exchange for a wage of a salary, they agree to supply
the owners with a certain quantity and quality of labour. *It is a
crucial characteristic of the institution of wage labour that the 
goods or services produced do not belong to the workers who produce
them but to those who supply the workers with the means of production.*"
[_After Capitalism_, p. 23]

Anarchists agree with Schweickart's definition of capitalism. As such,
he is right to argue that a "society of small farmers and artisans . . .
is not a capitalist society, since wage labour is largely absent." He
is, however, wrong to assert that a "society in which most of [the]
means of production are owned by the central government or by local
communities -- contemporary China, for example -- is not a capitalist
society, since private ownership of the means of production is not
dominant." [Op. Cit., p. 23]

The reason is apparent. As Emma Goldman said (pointing out the 
obvious), if property is nationalised "it belongs to the state;
this is, the government has control of it and can dispose of it
according to its wishes and views . . . Such a condition of affairs
may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider
it in any sense Communistic" (as that needs the "socialisation of the
land and of the machinery of production and distribution" which 
"belong[s] to the people, to be settled and used by individuals or
groups according to their needs" based on "free access"). [_Red Emma 
Speaks_, pp. 406-7]

Thus, by Schweickart's own definition, a system based on state 
ownership *is* capitalist as the workers clearly do not own the own 
means of production they use, the state does. Neither do they own the 
goods or services they produce, the state which supplies the workers 
with the means of production does. The difference is that rather
than being a number of different capitalists there is only one,
the state. It is, as Kropotkin warned, the "mere substitution . . .
of the State as the universal capitalist for the present capitalists."
[_Evolution and Environment_, p. 106] This is why anarchists have 
tended to call such regimes "state capitalist" as the state basically 
replaces the capitalist as boss. 

While this is most clear for regimes like China's which are 
dictatorships, the logic also applies to democratic states. No matter 
if a state is democratic, state ownership is a form of exclusive 
property ownership which implies a social relationship which is 
totally different from genuine forms of socialism. Common ownership 
and use rights produce social relationships based on liberty and 
equality. State ownership, however, presupposes the existence of a 
government machine, a centralised bureaucracy, which stands above 
the members of society, both as individuals and as a group, and 
has the power to coerce and dominate them. In other words, when a 
state owns the means of life, the members of society remain 
proletarians, non-owners, excluded from control. Both legally and 
in reality, the means of life belong not to them, but to the state. 
As the state is not an abstraction floating above society but rather 
a social institution made up of a specific group of human beings, 
this means that this group controls and so effectively owns the 
property in question, not society as a whole nor those who actually 
use it. Just as the owning class excludes the majority, so does the 
state bureaucracy which means it owns the means of production, 
whether or not this is formally and legally recognised.

This explains why libertarian socialists have consistently stressed
workers' self-management of production as the basis of any real form
of socialism. To concentrate on ownership, as both Leninism and social
democracy have done, misses the point. Needless to say, those regimes 
which have replaced capitalist ownership with state property have shown 
the validity the anarchist analysis in these matters ("all-powerful,
centralised Government with State Capitalism as its economic expression,"
to quote Emma Goldman's summation of Lenin's Russia [Op. Cit., p. 388]). 
State property is in no way fundamentally different from private property 
-- all that changes is who exploits and oppresses the workers. 

For more discussion see section H.3.13 -- "Why is state socialism just 
state capitalism?"

B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?

Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The 
owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and 
therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is 
exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under 
capitalism it is a source of coercive authority. As Bob Black 
points out in _The Abolition of Work_:

"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament 
totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the 
same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory 
as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time 
slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to 
do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. 
He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, 
if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the 
bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or 
no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses 
a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' 
just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you 
fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . . The 
demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the 
waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men 
for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's 
not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- 
better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism 
and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is 
lying or stupid." [_The Abolition of Work and other essays_, p. 21]

In response to this, defenders of capitalism usually say something 
along the lines of "It's a free market and if you don't like it, find 
another job." Of course, there are a number of problems with this 
response. Most obviously is the fact that capitalism is not and has 
never been a "free market." As we noted in section B.2, a key role 
of the state has been to protect the interests of the capitalist
class and, as a consequence of this, it has intervened time and time 
again to skew the market in favour of the bosses. As such, to inform 
us that capitalism is something it has never been in order to defend 
it from criticism is hardly convincing. 

However, there is another more fundamental issue with the response, 
namely the assumption that tyranny is an acceptable form of human 
interaction. To say that your option is either tolerate this boss 
or seek out another (hopefully more liberal) one suggests an utter 
lack of understanding what freedom is. Freedom is not the opportunity 
to pick a master, it is to be have autonomy over yourself. What 
capitalist ideology has achieved is to confuse having the ability 
to pick a master with freedom, that consent equates to liberty -- 
regardless of the objective circumstances shaping the choices being 
made or the nature of the social relationships such choices produce.

While we return to this argument in section B.4.3, a few words seem
appropriate now. To see why the capitalist response misses the point, 
we need only transfer the argument from the economic regime to the 
political. Let us assume a system of dictatorial states on an island. 
Each regime is a monarchy (i.e. a dictatorship). The King of each land
decrees what his subjects do, who they associate with and, moreover, 
appropriates the fruit of their labour in exchange for food, clothing 
and shelter for however many hours a day he wants (the King is generous 
and allows his subjects some time to themselves in the evening and 
weekends). Some of the Kings even decree what their subjects will wear 
and how they will greet their fellow subjects. Few people would say 
that those subject to such arrangements are free.

Now, if we add the condition that any subject is free to leave a Kingdom
but only if another King will let them join his regime, does that make
it any more freer? Slightly, but not by much. The subjects how have a
limited choice in who can govern them but the *nature* of the regime 
they are subjected to does not change. What we would expect to see 
happen is that those subjects whose skills are in demand will get 
better, more liberal, conditions than the others (as long as they are 
in demand). For the majority the conditions they are forced to accept 
will be as bad as before as they are easily replaceable. Both sets of 
subjects, however, are still under the autocratic rule of the monarchs. 
Neither are free but the members of one set have a more liberal regime 
than the others, dependent on the whims of the autocrats and their 
need for labour.

That this thought experiment reflects the way capitalism operates 
is clear. Little wonder anarchists have echoed Proudhon's complaint 
that "our large capitalist associations [are] organised in the spirit 
of commercial and industrial feudalism." [_Selected Writings of 
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 72] Ironically, rather than deny the
anarchist claim, defenders of capitalism have tried to convince us
that such a regime is liberty incarnate. Yet the statist nature of 
private property can be seen in (right-wing) "Libertarian" (i.e. 
"classical" liberal) works representing the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism: 

"If one starts a private town, on land whose acquisition did not and does 
not violate the Lockean proviso [of non-aggression], persons who chose 
to move there or later remain there would have no *right* to a say in how 
the town was run, unless it was granted to them by the decision procedures 
for the town which the owner had established." [Robert Nozick, _Anarchy, 
State and Utopia_, p. 270]

This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. And, indeed, it was. Such 
private towns have existed, most notably the infamous company towns 
of US history. Howard Zinn summarises the conditions of such "private
towns" in the Colorado mine fields:

"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the company acting 
as lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law enforcement
officer paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's rules.
Curfews were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to
visit the homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold
in the camp. The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers
hired by the company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in 
the hands of those who held economic power. This meant that the
authority of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was
virtually supreme . . . Company officials were appointed as
election judges. Company-dominated coroners and judges prevented
injured employees from collecting damages." [_The Colorado Coal 
Strike, 1913-14_, pp. 9-11]

Unsurprisingly, when the workers rebelled against this tyranny, 
they were evicted from their homes and the private law enforcement
agents were extremely efficient in repressing the strikers: "By
the end of the strike, most of the dead and injured were miners
and their families." The strike soon took on the features of a 
war, with battles between strikers and their supporters and the 
company thugs. Ironically, when the National Guard was sent in 
to "restore order" the "miners, having faced in the first five 
weeks of the strike what they considered a reign of terror at 
the hands of the private guards, . . . looked forward" to their 
arrival. They "did not know that the governor was sending these 
troops under pressure from the mine operators." Indeed, the banks 
and corporations lent the state funds to pay for the militia. It
was these company thugs, dressed in the uniform of the state
militia, who murdered woman and children in the infamous Ludlow
Massacre of April 20th, 1914. [Op. Cit., p. 22, p. 25, p. 35] 

Without irony the _New York Times_ editorialised that the 
"militia was as impersonal and impartial as the law." The 
corporation itself hired Ivy Lee ("the father of public 
relations in the United States") to change public opinion 
after the slaughter. Significantly, Lee produced a series of 
tracts labelled "Facts Concerning the Struggle in Colorado for 
Industrial Freedom." The head of the corporation (Rockefeller) 
portrayed his repression of the strikers as blow for workers'
freedom, to "defend the workers' right to work." [quoted by 
Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 44, p. 51 and p. 50] So much for the 
capitalism being the embodiment of liberty.

Of course, it can be claimed that "market forces" will result in the 
most liberal owners being the most successful, but a nice master is 
still a master (and, of course, capitalism then was more "free market"
than today, suggesting that this is simply wishful thinking). To 
paraphrase Tolstoy, "the liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey 
owner. He will do everything for the donkey -- care for it, feed 
it, wash it. Everything except get off its back!" And as Bob Black 
notes, "[s]ome people giving orders and others obeying them: this 
is the essence of servitude. . . . But freedom means more than the 
right to change masters." ["The Libertarian as Conservative", _The 
Abolition of Work and other essays_, p. 147] That supporters of 
capitalism often claim that this "right" to change masters *is* the 
essence of "freedom" is a telling indictment of the capitalist notion 
of "liberty." 

Needless to say, the authoritarianism of capitalism is not limited to
the workplace. Capitalists seek to bolster their power within society
as a whole, via the state. Capitalists call upon and support the state 
when it acts in *their* interests and when it supports *their* authority 
and power. Any apparent "conflict" between state and capital is like 
two gangsters fighting over the proceeds of a robbery: they will 
squabble over the loot and who has more power in the gang, but they 
need each other to appropriate the goods and defend their "property" 
against those from whom they stole it. 

Unlike a company, however, the democratic state can be influenced by 
its citizens, who are able to act in ways that limit (to some extent) 
the power of the ruling elite to be "left alone" to enjoy their domain. 
As a result, the wealthy hate the democratic aspects of the state, and 
its ordinary citizens, as potential threats to their power. This 
"problem" was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in early 19th-century 
America: 

"It is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain 
a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The
populace is at once the object of their scorn and their fears." 

These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic ideas. 
To quote one US Corporate Executive, "one man, one vote will result in the 
eventual failure of democracy as we know it." [L. Silk and D. Vogel, _Ethics 
and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business_, pp. 189f]

This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are
*anti*-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on
the state. This is because "[classical] Liberalism, is in theory a kind
of anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom
is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at
government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions
and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves, but
it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for
without the *gendarme* the property owner could not exist." [Errico
Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 47]

We have discussed the state and how the ruling elite control in 
section B.2 and will not do so here. Nor we will discuss the ways
in which the elite use that state to enforce private property (see
section B.3) or use the state to intervene in society (see section
D.1). Rather, the rest of this section will discuss how capitalism
impacts on freedom and autonomy and why the standard apologetics 
by defenders of capitalism fail.

B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom?

For anarchists, freedom means both "freedom from" and "freedom to."
"Freedom from" signifies not being subject to domination, exploitation,
coercive authority, repression, or other forms of degradation and
humiliation. "Freedom to" means being able to develop and express one's
abilities, talents, and potentials to the fullest possible extent
compatible with the maximum freedom of others. Both kinds of freedom
imply the need for self-management, responsibility, and independence,
which basically means that people have a say in the decisions that affect
their lives. And since individuals do not exist in a social vacuum, it
also means that freedom *must* take on a collective aspect, with the
associations that individuals form with each other (e.g. communities, work
groups, social groups) being run in a manner which allows the individual
to participate in the decisions that the group makes. Thus freedom for
anarchists requires participatory democracy, which means face-to-face
discussion and voting on issues by the people affected by them. 

Are these conditions of freedom met in the capitalist system? Obviously
not. Despite all their rhetoric about "democracy," most of the "advanced"
capitalist states remain only superficially democratic -- and this because
the majority of their citizens are employees who spend about half their
waking hours under the thumb of capitalist dictators (bosses) who allow
them no voice in the crucial economic decisions that affect their lives
most profoundly and require them to work under conditions inimical to
independent thinking. If the most basic freedom, namely freedom to think
for oneself, is denied, then freedom itself is denied. 

The capitalist workplace is profoundly undemocratic. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky
points out, the oppressive authority relations in the typical corporate
hierarchy would be called fascist or totalitarian if we were referring to a
political system. In his words : 

"There's nothing individualistic about corporations. These are big 
conglomerate institutions, essentially totalitarian in character, but 
hardly individualistic. There are few institutions in human society that 
have such strict hierarchy and top-down control as a business organisation.
Nothing there about 'don't tread on me`. You're being tread on all the
time." [_Keeping the Rabble in Line_, p. 280] 

Far from being "based on freedom," then, capitalism actually destroys
freedom. In this regard, Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of
Sears, spoke plainly when he said "[w]e stress the advantages of the free
enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state, but . . . 
we have created more or less of a totalitarian system in industry,
particularly in large industry." [quoted by Allan Engler, _Apostles
of Greed_, p. 68]

Or, as Chomsky puts it, supporters of capitalism do not understand "the 
*fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, 
including the control of the manager and the owner" [Feb. 14th, 1992 
appearance on _Pozner/Donahue_].

Under corporate authoritarianism, the psychological traits deemed most
desirable for average citizens to possess are efficiency, conformity,
emotional detachment, insensitivity, and unquestioning obedience to
authority -- traits that allow people to survive and even prosper as
employees in the company hierarchy. And of course, for "non-average"
citizens, i.e., bosses, managers, administrators, etc., *authoritarian*
traits are needed, the most important being the ability and willingness 
to dominate others. 

But all such master/slave traits are inimical to the functioning
of real (i.e. participatory) democracy, which requires that citizens 
have qualities like flexibility, creativity, sensitivity, understanding,
emotional honesty, directness, warmth, realism, and the ability to
mediate, communicate, negotiate, integrate and co-operate. Therefore,
capitalism is not only *un*democratic, it is *anti*-democratic, because 
it promotes the development of traits that make real democracy (and so 
a libertarian society) impossible.

Many capitalist apologists have attempted to show that capitalist 
authority structures are "voluntary" and are, therefore, somehow not a
denial of individual and social freedom. Milton Friedman (a leading free 
market capitalist economist) has attempted to do just this. Like most
apologists for capitalism he ignores the authoritarian relations explicit
within wage labour (within the workplace, "co-ordination" is based upon
top-down command, *not* horizontal co-operation). Instead he concentrates
on the decision of a worker to sell their labour to a *specific* boss 
and so ignores the lack of freedom within such contracts. He argues that 
"individuals are effectively free to enter or not enter into any particular 
exchange, so every transaction is strictly voluntary. . . The employee is 
protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for 
whom he can work." [_Capitalism and Freedom_, pp. 14-15]

Friedman, to prove the free nature of capitalism, compares capitalism with
a simple exchange economy based upon independent producers. He states 
that in such a simple economy each household "has the alternative of 
producing directly for itself, [and so] it need not enter into any exchange 
unless it benefits from it. Hence no exchange will take place unless both 
parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without 
coercion." Under capitalism (or the "complex" economy) Friedman states 
that "individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into 
any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary." 
[Op. Cit., p. 13 and p. 14]

A moments thought, however, shows that capitalism is not based on "strictly 
voluntary" transactions as Friedman claims. This is because the proviso 
that is required to make every transaction "strictly voluntary" is *not* 
freedom not to enter any *particular* exchange, but freedom not to enter 
into any exchange *at all.* This, and only this, was the proviso that 
proved the simple model Friedman presents (the one based upon artisan 
production) to be voluntary and non-coercive; and nothing less than 
this would prove the complex model (i.e. capitalism) is voluntary and 
non-coercive. But Friedman is clearly claiming above that freedom not 
to enter into any *particular* exchange is enough and so, *only by 
changing his own requirements,* can he claim that capitalism is based 
upon freedom.

It is easy to see what Friedman has done, but it is less easy to excuse 
it (particularly as it is so commonplace in capitalist apologetics). He 
moved from the simple economy of exchange between independent producers 
to the capitalist economy without mentioning the most important thing that 
distinguishes them -- namely the separation of labour from the means of 
production. In the society of independent producers, the worker had the
choice of working for themselves -- under capitalism this is not the case. 
For capitalist economists like Friedman, workers choose whether to work 
or not. The bosses must pay a wage to cover the "disutility" of labour. 
In reality, of course, most workers face the choice of working or
starvation/poverty. Capitalism is based upon the existence of a 
labour force without access to capital or land, and therefore without 
a choice as to whether to put its labour in the market or not. Friedman 
would, hopefully, agree that where there is no choice there is coercion. 
His attempted demonstration that capitalism co-ordinates without coercion 
therefore fails.

Capitalist apologists are able to convince some people that capitalism 
is "based on freedom" only because the system has certain superficial
*appearances* of freedom. On closer analysis these appearances turn out 
to be deceptions. For example, it is claimed that the employees of 
capitalist firms have freedom because they can always quit. To re-quote 
Bob Black: 

"Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the 
essence of servitude. Of course, as [right-Libertarians] smugly 
[observe], 'one can at least change jobs,' but you can't avoid 
having a job -- just as under statism one can at least change
nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one nation-state 
or another. But freedom means more than the right to change masters." 
["The Libertarian as Conservative", _The Abolition of Work and other 
essays_, p. 147] 

Under capitalism, workers have only the Hobson's choice of being 
governed/exploited or living on the street. 

Anarchists point out that for choice to be real, free agreements and
associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into
them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social
relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because
private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social
hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination, as was
recognised even by Adam Smith (see below). 

The picture painted by Walter Reuther (one time head of the US 
autoworkers' union)of working life in America before the Wagner 
act is a commentary on class inequality : "Injustice was as common 
as streetcars. When men walked into their jobs, they left their
dignity, their citizenship and their humanity outside. They were required
to report for duty whether there was work or not. While they waited on the
convenience of supervisors and foremen they were unpaid. They could be
fired without a pretext. They were subjected to arbitrary, senseless rules.
. . .Men were tortured by regulations that made difficult even going to
the toilet. Despite grandiloquent statements from the presidents of huge
corporations that their door was open to any worker with a complaint,
there was no one and no agency to which a worker could appeal if he were
wronged. The very idea that a worker could be wronged seemed absurd to the
employer." Much of this indignity remains, and with the globalisation of
capital, the bargaining position of workers is further deteriorating, so
that the gains of a century of class struggle are in danger of being lost. 

A quick look at the enormous disparity of power and wealth between the
capitalist class and the working class shows that the benefits of the
"agreements" entered into between the two sides are far from equal. Walter
Block, a leading ideologue of the Canadian right-libertarian "think-tank"
the Fraser Institute, makes clear the differences in power and benefits 
when discussing sexual harassment in the workplace:

"Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a
secretary and a boss. . .while objectionable to many women, [it] is not 
a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the
secretary agrees to *all* aspects of the job when she agrees to accept 
the job, and especially when she agrees to *keep* the job. The office is,
after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the
'coercion' is objectionable." [quoted by Engler, Op. Cit., p. 101]

The primary goal of the Fraser Institute is to convince people that all
other rights must be subordinated to the right to enjoy wealth. In this
case, Block makes clear that under private property, only bosses have
"freedom to," and most also desire to ensure they have "freedom from"
interference with this right. 

So, when capitalists gush about the "liberty" available under capitalism,
what they are really thinking of is their state-protected freedom to
exploit and oppress workers through the ownership of property, a freedom
that allows them to continue amassing huge disparities of wealth, which in
turn insures their continued power and privileges. That the capitalist
class in liberal-democratic states *gives* workers the right to change
masters (though this is not true under state capitalism) is far from
showing that capitalism is based on freedom, For as Peter Kropotkin
rightly points out, "freedoms are not given, they are taken" [Peter
Kropotkin, _Words of a Rebel_, p. 43]. In capitalism, you are "free" 
to do anything you are permitted to do by your masters, which amounts 
to "freedom" with a collar and leash.

B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership? 

Murray Rothbard, a leading "libertarian" capitalist, claims that 
capitalism is based on the "basic axiom" of "the right to 
self-ownership." This "axiom" is defined as "the absolute right 
of each man [sic] . . . to control [his or her] body free of 
coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, 
value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive 
and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man [sic] the 
right to perform these vital activities without being hampered 
by coercive molestation." [_For a New Liberty_, pp. 26-27]

At first sight, this appears to sound reasonable. That we "own" 
ourselves and, consequently, we decide what we do with ourselves 
has an intuitive appeal. Surely this is liberty? Thus, in this
perspective, liberty "is a condition in which a person's ownership 
rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are 
*not* invaded, are not aggressed against." It also lends itself 
to contrasts with slavery, where one individual owns another and
"the slave has little or no right to self-ownership; his person 
and his produce are systematically expropriated by his master 
by the use of violence." [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 41] This means
that "self-ownership" can be portrayed as the opposite of slavery:
we have the dominion over ourselves that a slaveholder has over
their slave. This means that slavery is wrong because the slave
owner has stolen the rightful property of the slave, namely their
body (and its related abilities). This concept is sometimes expressed 
as people having a "natural" or "inalienable" right to own their 
own body and the product of their own labour.

Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not
convinced. "Self-ownership," like slavery, places issues of 
freedom and individuality within the context of private property
-- as such it shares the most important claim of slavery, namely 
that people can be objects of the rules of private property. 
It suggests an alienated perspective and, moreover, a fatal flaw 
in the dogma. This can be seen from how the axiom is used in 
practice. In as much as the term "self-ownership" is used simply 
as an synonym for "individual autonomy" anarchists do not have an 
issue with it. However, the "basic axiom" is not used in this way 
by the theorists of capitalism. Liberty in the sense of individual
autonomy is not what "self-ownership" aims to justify. Rather, 
it aims to justify the denial of liberty, not its exercise. It
aims to portray social relationships, primarily wage labour, in
which one person commands another as examples of liberty rather
than what they are, examples of domination and oppression. In 
other words, "self-ownership" becomes the means by which the 
autonomy of individuals is limited, if not destroyed, in the 
name of freedom and liberty.

This is exposed in the right-libertarian slogan "human rights are
property rights." Assuming this is true, it means that you can alienate 
your rights, rent them or sell them like any other kind of property. 
Moreover, if you have no property, you have no human rights as you
have no place to exercise them. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for 
"free market" capitalism stated, "there can be no such thing as the 
right to unrestricted freedom of speech (or of action) on someone 
else's property." [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, p. 258] If you 
are in someone else's property (say at work) you have no basic 
rights at all, beyond the right not to be harmed (a right bosses 
habitually violate anyway by ignoring health and safety issues). 

Self-ownership justifies this. You have rented out the property in 
your person (labour services) and, consequently, another person can 
tell you what to do, when to do and how to do it. Thus property comes 
into conflict with liberty. If you argue that "human rights are property 
rights" you automatically ensure that human rights are continually 
violated in practice simply because there is a conflict between 
property and liberty. This is not surprising, as the "property rights" 
theory of liberty was created to justify the denial of other people's 
liberty and the appropriation of their labour.

Clearly, then, we reach a problem with "self-ownership" (or property
in the person) once we take into account private property and its
distribution. In a nutshell, capitalists don't pay their employees 
to perform the other "vital activities" listed by Rothbard (learning, 
valuing, choosing ends and means) -- unless, of course, the firm 
requires that workers undertake such activities in the interests 
of company profits. Otherwise, workers can rest assured that any 
efforts to engage in such "vital activities" on company time *will* 
be "hampered" by "coercive  molestation." Therefore wage labour (the 
basis of capitalism) in practice *denies* the rights associated with 
"self-ownership," thus alienating the individual from his or her 
basic rights. Or as Michael Bakunin expressed it, "the worker sells 
his person and his liberty for a given time" under capitalism. 
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 187] 

In a society of relative equals, "property" would not be a source 
of power as use would co-incidence with occupancy (i.e. private 
property would be replaced by possession). For example, you would 
still be able to fling a drunk out of your home. But in a system 
based on wage labour (i.e. capitalism), property is a different thing 
altogether, becoming a source of *institutionalised* power and 
coercive authority through hierarchy. As Noam Chomsky writes, 
capitalism is based on "a *particular form* of authoritarian control. 
Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, 
which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination." When "property" 
is purely what you, as an individual, use (i.e. *possession*) it is 
not a source of power. In capitalism, however, "property" rights no 
longer coincide with *use* rights, and so they become a *denial* of 
freedom and a source of authority and power over the individual. 

As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (sections A.2.8 and B.1), 
all forms of authoritarian control depend on "coercive molestation" -- 
i.e. the use or threat of sanctions. This is definitely the case in 
company hierarchies under capitalism. Bob Black describes the 
authoritarian nature of capitalism as follows: 

"[T]he place where [adults] pass the most time and submit to the closest 
control is at work. Thus . . . it's apparent that the source of the 
greatest direct duress experienced by the ordinary adult is *not* 
the state but rather the business that employs him. Your foreman or 
supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police 
do in a decade." ["The Libertarian as Conservative", _The Abolition 
of Work and other essays_, p. 145] 

In developing nations, this control can easily been seen to be an
utter affront to human dignity and liberty. There a workplace is
often "surrounded by barbed wire. Behind its locked doors . . . 
workers are supervised by guards who beat and humiliate them on
the slightest pretext . . . Each worker repeats the same action 
-- sewing on a belt loop, stitching a sleeve -- maybe two thousand
times a day. They work under painfully bright lights, for twelve-
to fourteen-hour shifts, in overheated factories, with too few
bathroom breaks, and restricted access to water (to reduce the 
need for more bathroom breaks), which is often foul and unfit 
for human consumption in any event." The purpose is "to maximise
the amount of profit that could be wrung out" of the workers, 
with the "time allocated to each task" being calculated in "units
of ten thousands of a second." [Joel Bakan, _The Corporation_, 
pp. 66-7] While in the developed world the forms of control are, 
in general, nowhere as extreme (in thanks due to hard won labour
organising and struggle) the basic principle is the same. Only a 
sophist would argue that the workers "owned" themselves and 
abilities for the period in question -- yet this is what the
advocates of "self-ownership" do argue.

So if by the term "self-ownership" it is meant "individual autonomy"
then, no, capitalism is not based on it. Ironically, the theory of
"self-ownership" is used to undercut and destroy genuine self-ownership
 during working hours (and, potentially, elsewhere). The logic is 
simple. As I own myself I am, therefore, able to sell myself as well, 
although few advocates of "self-ownership" are as blunt as this (as 
we discuss in section F.2.2 right-libertarian Robert Nozick accepts 
that voluntary slavery flows from this principle). Instead they 
stress that we "own" our labour and we contract them to others 
to use. Yet, unlike other forms of property, labour cannot be 
alienated. Therefore when you sell your labour you sell yourself, 
your liberty, for the time in question. By alienating your labour 
power, you alienate the substance of your being, your personality, 
for the time in question.

As such, "self-ownership" ironically becomes the means of justifying 
authoritarian social relationships which deny the autonomy it claims
to defend. Indeed, these relationships have similarities with slavery,
the very thing which its advocates like to contrast "self-ownership"
to. While modern defenders of capitalism deny this, classical 
economist James Mill let the cat out of the bag by directly 
comparing the two. It is worthwhile to quote him at length:

"The great capitalist, the owner of a manufactory, if he operated with 
slaves instead of free labourers, like the West India planter, would be 
regarded as owner both of the capital, and of the labour. He would be 
owner, in short, of both instruments of production: and the whole of 
the produce, without participation, would be his own.

"What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by means 
of labourers receiving wages? The labourer, who receives wages, sells 
his labour for a day, a week, a month, or a year, as the case may be. 
The manufacturer, who pays these wages, buys the labour, for the day, 
the year, or whatever period it may be. He is equally therefore the 
owner of the labour, with the manufacturer who operates with slaves. 
The only difference is, in the mode of purchasing. The owner of the 
slave purchases, at once, the whole of the labour, which the man can 
ever perform: he, who pays wages, purchases only so much of a man's 
labour as he can perform in a day, or any other stipulated time. 
Being equally, however, the owner of the labour, so purchased, as 
the owner of the slave is of that of the slave, the produce, which 
is the result of this labour, combined with his capital, is all 
equally his own. In the state of society, in which we at present 
exist, it is in these circumstances that almost all production is 
effected: the capitalist is the owner of both instruments of 
production: and the whole of the produce is his." ["Elements of 
Political Economy" quoted by David Ellerman, _Property and Contract 
in Economics_, pp. 53-4

Thus the only "difference" between slavery and capitalist labour is 
the "mode of purchasing." The labour itself and its product in both 
cases is owned by the "great capitalist." Clearly this is a case of,
to use Rothbard's words, during working hours the worker "has little 
or no right to self-ownership; his person and his produce are 
systematically expropriated by his master." Little wonder anarchists 
have tended to call wage labour by the more accurate term "wage 
slavery." For the duration of the working day the boss owns the 
labour power of the worker. As this cannot be alienated from its
"owner" this means that the boss effectively owns the worker -- and
keeps the product of their labour for the privilege of so doing!

There are key differences of course. At the time, slavery was not
a voluntary decision and the slaves could not change their master
(although in some cultures, such as Ancient Rome, people over the
could sell themselves in slavery while "*voluntary* slavery is 
sanctioned in the Bible." [Ellerman, Op. Cit., p. 115 and p. 114]). 
Yet the fact that under wage slavery people are not forced to 
take a specific job and can change masters does not change the 
relations of authority created between the two parties. As we 
note in the next section, the objection that people can leave 
their jobs just amounts to saying "love it or leave it!" and 
does not address the issue at hand. The vast majority of the 
population cannot avoid wage labour and remain wage workers for 
most of their adult lives. It is virtually impossible to 
distinguish being able to sell your liberty/labour piecemeal 
over a lifetime from alienating your whole lifetime's labour at 
one go. Changing who you alienate your labour/liberty to does 
not change the act and experience of alienation. 

Thus the paradox of self-ownership. It presupposes autonomy only in
order to deny it. In order to enter a contract, the worker exercises
autonomy in deciding whether it is advantageous to rent or sell his
or her property (their labour power) for use by another (and given
that the alternative is, at best, poverty unsurprisingly people do 
consider it "advantageous" to "consent" to the contract). Yet what
is rented or sold is *not* a piece of property but rather a 
self-governing individual. Once the contract is made and the 
property rights are transferred, they no longer have autonomy and
are treated like any other factor of production or commodity. 

In the "self-ownership" thesis this is acceptable due to its 
assumption that people and their labour power are property. Yet
the worker cannot send along their labour by itself to an employer.
By its very nature, the worker has to be present in the workplace if
this "property" is to be put to use by the person who has bought it.
The consequence of contracting out your labour (your property in the
person) is that your autonomy (liberty) is restricted, if not 
destroyed, depending on the circumstances of the particular contract
signed. This is because employers hire people, not a piece of 
property. 

So far from being based on the "right to self-ownership," then, 
capitalism effectively denies it, alienating the individual from 
such basic rights as free speech, independent thought, and 
self-management of one's own activity, which individuals have to 
*give up* when they are employed. But since these rights, according 
to Rothbard, are the products of humans *as* humans, wage labour 
alienates them from themselves, exactly as it does the individual's 
labour power and creativity. For you do not sell your skills, as 
these skills are *part* of you. Instead, what you have to sell is 
your *time*, your labour power, and so *yourself.* Thus under wage 
labour, rights of "self-ownership" are always placed below property 
rights, the only "right" being left to you is that of finding another 
job (although even this right is denied in some countries if the
employee owes the company money). 

It should be stressed that this is *not* a strange paradox of the
"self-ownership" axiom. Far from it. The doctrine was most famously
expounded by John Locke, who argued that "every Man has a *Property*
in his own *Person.* This no Body has any Right to but himself."
However, a person can sell, "for a certain time, the Service he 
undertakes to do, in exchange for Wages he is to receive." The 
buyer of the labour then owns both it and its product. "Thus
the Grass my Horse has bit; the Turfs my Servant has cut; and the
Ore I have digg'd in any place where I have a right to them in 
common with others, becomes my *Property,* without the assignation
or consent of any body. The *labour* that was mine . . . hath *fixed*
my *Property* in them." [_Second Treatise on Government_, Section 27, 
Section 85 and Section 28]

Thus a person (the servant) becomes the equivalent of an animal (the 
horse) once they have sold their labour to the boss. Wage labour
denies the basic humanity and autonomy of the worker. Rather than 
being equals, private property produces relations of domination and
alienation. Proudhon compared this to an association in which, "while 
the partnership lasts, the profits and losses are divided between 
them; since each produces, not for himself, but for the society; when 
the time of distribution arrives it is not the producer who is 
considered, but the associated. That is why the slave, to whom the 
planter gives straw and rice; and the civilised labour, to whom 
the capitalist pays a salary which is always too small, -- not 
being associated with their employers, although producing with 
them, --  are disregarded when the product is divided. Thus the 
horse who draws our coaches . . . produce with us, but are not 
associated with us; we take their product but do not share it with 
them. The animals and labourers whom we employ hold the same relation 
to us." [_What is Property?_, p. 226] 

So while the capitalist Locke sees nothing wrong in comparing a person 
to an animal, the anarchist Proudhon objects to the fundamental injustice
of a system which turns a person into a resource for another to use. And
we do mean resource, as the self-ownership thesis is also the means by 
which the poor become little more than spare parts for the wealthy. After 
all, the poor own their bodies and, consequently, can sell all or part 
of it to a willing party. This means that someone in dire economic 
necessity can sell parts of their body to the rich. Ultimately, "[t]o 
tell a poor man that he *has* property because he *has* arms and legs 
-- that the hunger from which he suffers, and his power to sleep in 
the open air are his property, -- is to play upon words, and to add 
insult to injury." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 80]

Obviously the ability to labour is *not* the property of a person 
-- it is their possession. Use and ownership are fused and
cannot be separated out. As such, anarchists argue that the history 
of capitalism shows that there is a considerable difference whether 
one said (like the defenders of capitalism) that slavery is wrong 
because every person has a natural right to the property of their 
own body, or because every person has a natural right freely to 
determine their own destiny (like the anarchists). The first kind 
of right is alienable and in the context of a capitalist regime 
ensures that the many labour for those who own the means of life. 
The second kind of right is inalienable as long as a person remained 
a person and, therefore, liberty or self-determination is not a claim 
to ownership which might be both acquired and surrendered, but an 
inextricable aspect of the activity of being human. 

The anarchist position on the inalienable nature of human liberty 
also forms the basis for the excluded to demand access to the means 
necessary to labour. "From the distinction between possession 
and property," argued Proudhon, "arise two sorts of rights: the *jus 
in re*, the right *in* a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the 
property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and 
*jus ad rem*, the right *to* a thing, which gives me a claim to
become a proprietor . . . In the first, possession and property 
are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, 
as a labourer, have a right to the possession of the products of 
Nature and my own industry -- and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none 
of them -- it is by virtue of the *jus de rem* that I demand 
admittance to the *jus in re.*" [Op. Cit., p. 65] Thus to make 
the self-ownership of labour and its products a reality for 
those who do the actual work in society rather than a farce, 
property must be abolished -- both in terms of the means of life 
and also in defining liberty and what it means to be free. 

So, contrary to Rothbard's claim, capitalism in practice uses 
the rhetoric of self-ownership to alienate the right to genuine 
self-ownership because of the authoritarian structure of the 
workplace, which derives from private property. If we desire 
real self-ownership, we cannot renounce it for most of our adult 
lives by becoming wage slaves. Only workers' self-management of 
production, not capitalism, can make self-ownership a reality:

"They speak of 'inherent rights', 'inalienable rights', 'natural
rights,' etc . . . Unless the material conditions for equality
exist, it is worse than mockery to pronounce men equal. And unless
there is equality (and by equality I mean equal chances for every
one to make the most of himself [or herself]) unless, I say, these
equal changes exist, freedom, either of though, speech, or action,
is equally a mockery . . . As long as the working-people . . . 
tramp the streets, whose stones they lay, whose filth they clean, 
whose sewers they dig, yet upon which they must not stand too long 
lest the policeman bid them 'move on'; as long as they go from 
factory to factory, begging for the opportunity to be a slave, 
receiving the insults of bosses and foreman, getting the old 
'no,' the old shake of the head, in these factories they built, 
whose machines they wrought; so long as they consent to be herd like
cattle, in the cities, driven year after year, more and more, off the
mortgaged land, the land they cleared, fertilised, cultivated, 
rendered of value . . . so long as they continue to do these things
vaguely relying upon some power outside themselves, be it god, or
priest, or politician, or employer, or charitable society, to remedy
matters, so long deliverance will be delayed. When they conceive the
possibility of a complete international federation of labour, whose
constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories,
all the instruments of production . . . , in short, conduct their
own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or
employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught
-- Self-Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech
[along with their other rights] (and no paper guarantee needed)." 
[Voltairine de Cleyre, _The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader_, pp. 4-6]

To conclude, the idea that capitalism is based on self-ownership is 
radically at odds with reality if, by self-ownership, it is meant 
self-determination or individual autonomy. However, this is not 
surprising given that the rationale behind the self-ownership thesis 
is precisely to justify capitalist hierarchy and its resulting 
restrictions on liberty. Rather than being a defence of liberty, 
self-ownership is designed to facilitate its erosion. In order to
make the promise of autonomy implied by the concept of "self-ownership"
a reality, private property will need to be abolished. 

For more discussion of the limitations, contradictions and fallacies 
of defining liberty in terms of self-ownership and property rights, 
see section F.2.

B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!

Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary"
undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due 
to *past* initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest),
the control of the state by the capitalist class plus the tendency 
for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control 
vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. Thus 
denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the 
principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly 
points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally 
are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to 
people is more than 'theft' . . . it is outright homicide." 
[_Remaking Society_, p. 187]

David Ellerman has also noted that the past use of force has resulted in
the majority being limited to those options allowed to them by the powers
that be: 

"It is a veritable mainstay of capitalist thought . . . that the moral 
flaws of chattel slavery have not survived in capitalism since the workers, 
unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary wage contracts. 
But it is only that, in the case of capitalism, the denial of natural 
rights is less complete so that the worker has a residual legal
personality as a free 'commodity owner.' He is thus allowed to
voluntarily put his own working life to traffic. When a robber denies
another person's right to make an infinite number of other choices besides
losing his money or his life and the denial is backed up by a gun, then
this is clearly robbery even though it might be said that the victim
making a 'voluntary choice' between his remaining options. When the legal
system itself denies the natural rights of working people in the name of
the prerogatives of capital, and this denial is sanctioned by the legal
violence of the state, then the theorists of 'libertarian' capitalism do
not proclaim institutional robbery, but rather they celebrate the 'natural
liberty' of working people to choose between the remaining options of
selling their labour as a commodity and being unemployed." [quoted by 
Noam Chomsky, _The Chomsky Reader_, p. 186]

Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker being
separated from the means of production. The natural basis of capitalism is
wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but to sell their
skills, labour and time to those who *do* own the means of production. In
advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the working population are
self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada - however, 
this figure includes *employers* as well, meaning that the number of 
self-employed *workers* is even smaller!). Hence for the vast majority, 
the labour market is their only option.

Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position of a
serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is formally
"free" and "equal" under the law: 

"Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf 
of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty
for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this
terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his
family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful
calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer. . . .The
worker always has the *right* to leave his employer, but has he the means 
to do so?  No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He 
is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to 
the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical
freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently
it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the
whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession
of terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but
compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief
interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is
real slavery." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, pp. 187-8]

Obviously, a company cannot *force* you to work for them but, in general,
you have to work for *someone.* How this situation developed is, of course, 
usually ignored. If not glossed over as irrelevant, some fairy tale is spun 
in which a few bright people saved and worked hard to accumulate capital 
and the lazy majority flocked to be employed by these (almost superhuman) 
geniuses. In the words of one right-wing economist (talking specifically 
of the industrial revolution but whose argument is utilised today):

"The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a 
factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the 
wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless 
much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them." 
[Ludwig von Mises, _Human Action_, pp. 619-20]

Notice the assumptions. The workers just happen have such a terrible set 
of options -- the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do with it. 
And these owners just happen to have all these means of production on their 
hands while the working class just happen to be without property and, as a 
consequence, forced to sell their labour on the owners' terms. That the 
state enforces capitalist property rights and acts to defend the power of 
the owning class is just another co-incidence among many. The possibility 
that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies 
that reduced the available options of workers is too ludicrous even to 
mention.

Yet in the real world, the power of coincidence to explain all is less 
compelling. Here things are more grim as the owning class clearly benefited 
from numerous acts of state violence and a general legal framework which 
restricted the options available for the workers. Apparently we are meant
to believe that it is purely by strange co-incidence the state was run by 
the wealthy and owning classes, not the working class, and that a whole 
host of anti-labour laws and practices were implemented by random chance.

It should be stressed that this nonsense, with its underlying assumptions 
and inventions, is still being peddled today. It is being repeated to 
combat the protests that "multinational corporations exploit people in 
poor countries." Yes, it will be readily admitted, multinationals *do* 
pay lower wages in developing countries than in rich ones: that is why 
they go there. However, it is argued, this represents economic advancement 
compares to what the other options available are. As the corporations do 
not force them to work for them and they would have stayed with what 
they were doing previously the charge of exploitation is wrong. Would 
you, it is stressed, leave your job for one with less pay and worse 
conditions? In fact, the bosses are doing them a favour in paying 
such low wages for the products the companies charge such high 
prices in the developed world for.

And so, by the same strange co-incidence that marked the industrial 
revolution, capitalists today (in the form of multinational corporations) 
gravitate toward states with terrible human rights records. States where, 
at worse, death squads torture and "disappear" union and peasant 
co-operative organisers or where, at best, attempts to organise a union 
can get you arrested or fired and blacklisted. States were peasants are
being forced of their land as a result of government policies which 
favour the big landlords. By an equally strange coincidence, the foreign 
policy of the American and European governments is devoted to making 
sure such anti-labour regimes stay in power. It is a co-incidence, of 
course, that such regimes are favoured by the multinationals and that 
these states spend so much effort in providing a "market friendly" climate 
to tempt the corporations to set up their sweatshops there. It is also, 
apparently, just a co-incidence that these states are controlled by 
the local wealthy owning classes and subject to economic pressure by
the transnationals which invest and wish to invest there.

It is clear that when a person who is mugged hands over their money 
to the mugger they do so because they prefer it to the "next best 
alternative." As such, it is correct that people agree to sell their 
liberty to a boss because their "next best alternative" is worse (utter 
poverty or starvation are not found that appealing for some reason). 
But so what? As anarchists have been pointing out over a century, the 
capitalists have systematically used the state to create a limit options 
for the many, to create buyers' market for labour by skewing the 
conditions under which workers can sell their labour in the bosses 
favour. To then merrily answer all criticisms of this set-up with 
the response that the workers "voluntarily agreed" to work on those 
terms is just hypocrisy. Does it really change things if the mugger 
(the state) is only the agent (hired thug) of another criminal (the 
owning class)?

As such, hymns to the "free market" seem somewhat false when the reality
of the situation is such that workers do not need to be forced at gun 
point to enter a specific workplace because of *past* (and more often
than not, current) "initiation of force" by the capitalist class and 
the state have created the objective conditions within which we make 
our employment decisions. At the very least, before any *specific* 
labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the 
means of production is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" 
market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class). So 
while we can usually pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general,
cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the
economy is tiny, which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty 
actually is). Of course, the ability to leave employment and seek it 
elsewhere is an important freedom. However, this freedom, like most 
freedoms under capitalism, is of limited use and hides a deeper 
anti-individual reality. 

As Karl Polanyi puts it: 

"In human terms such a postulate [of a labour market] implied for the worker 
extreme instability of earnings, utter absence of professional standards, 
abject readiness to be shoved and pushed about indiscriminately, complete
dependence on the whims of the market. [Ludwig Von] Mises justly argued
that if workers 'did not act as trade unionists, but reduced their demands
and changed their locations and occupations according to the labour
market, they would eventually find work.' This sums up the position under
a system based on the postulate of the commodity character of labour. It
is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to
what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to
change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed." 
[_The Great Transformation_, p. 176]

(Although we should point out that von Mises argument that workers 
will "eventually" find work as well as being nice and vague -- how long
is "eventually"?, for example -- is contradicted by actual experience. As 
the Keynesian economist Michael Stewart notes, in the nineteenth century 
workers "who lost their jobs had to redeploy fast or starve (and even this 
feature of the nineteenth century economy . . . did not prevent prolonged 
recessions)" [_Keynes in the 1990s_, p. 31] Workers "reducing their demands" 
may actually worsen an economic slump, causing more unemployment in the 
short run and lengthening the length of the crisis. We address the issue 
of unemployment and workers "reducing their demands" in more detail in 
section C.9).

It is sometimes argued that capital needs labour, so both have an equal
say in the terms offered, and hence the labour market is based on "liberty." 
But for capitalism to be based on real freedom or on true free agreement, 
both sides of the capital/labour divide must be equal in bargaining power,
otherwise any agreement would favour the most powerful at the expense
of the other party. However, due to the existence of private property and
the states needed to protect it, this equality is de facto impossible, 
regardless of the theory. This is because. in general, capitalists have 
three advantages on the "free" labour market-- the law and state placing 
the rights of property above those of labour, the existence of unemployment 
over most of the business cycle and capitalists having more resources to 
fall back on. We will discuss each in turn.

The first advantage, namely property owners having the backing of the
law and state, ensures that when workers go on strike or use other forms
of direct action (or even when they try to form a union) the capitalist has
the full backing of the state to employ scabs, break picket lines or fire
"the ring-leaders." This obviously gives employers greater power in their 
bargaining position, placing workers in a weak position (a position that
may make them, the workers, think twice before standing up for their rights).

The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures
that "employers have a structural advantage in the labour market, because 
there are typically more candidates. . . than jobs for them to fill." This
means that "[c]ompetition in labour markets us typically skewed in favour
of employers: it is a buyers market. And in a buyer's market, it is the
sellers who compromise. Competition for labour is not strong enough to
ensure that workers' desires are always satisfied." [Juliet B. Schor, _The 
Overworked American_, p. 71, p. 129] If the labour market generally favours
the employer, then this obviously places working people at a disadvantage 
as the threat of unemployment and the hardships associated with it encourages 
workers to take any job and submit to their bosses demands and power 
while employed. Unemployment, in other words, serves to discipline labour. 
The higher the prevailing unemployment rate, the harder it is to find a new 
job, which raises the cost of job loss and makes it less likely for workers 
to strike, join unions, or to resist employer demands, and so on. 

As Bakunin argued, "the property owners... are *likewise* forced to seek out 
and purchase labour... *but not in the same measure* . . . [there is no] 
equality between those who offer their labour and those who purchase it." 
[Op. Cit., p. 183] This ensures that any "free agreements" made benefit 
the capitalists more than the workers (see the next section on periods 
of full employment, when conditions tilt in favour of working people). 

Lastly, there is the issue of inequalities in wealth and so resources. The 
capitalist generally has more resources to fall back on during strikes and 
while waiting to find employees (for example, large companies with many
factories can swap production to their other factories if one goes on strike). 
And by having more resources to fall back on, the capitalist can hold out 
longer than the worker, so placing the employer in a stronger bargaining 
position and so ensuring labour contracts favour them. This was recognised 
by Adam Smith:

 "It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers and 
capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the other into 
a compliance with their terms... In all such disputes the masters can 
hold out much longer . . . though they did not employ a single workman 
[the masters] could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which 
they already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could 
subsist a month, and scare any a year without employment. In the long-run 
the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but 
the necessity is not so immediate. . . [I]n disputes with their workmen, 
masters must generally have the advantage." [_Wealth of Nations_, pp. 59-60]

How little things have changed.

Thus, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for 
them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell 
your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but the labour 
market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in 
favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free agreements" made on it 
favour the boss and result in the workers submitting to domination and 
exploitation. This is why anarchists support collective organisation 
(such as unions) and resistance (such as strikes), direct action and 
solidarity to make us as, if not more, powerful than our exploiters
and win important reforms and improvements (and, ultimately, change 
society), even when faced with the disadvantages on the labour market 
we have indicated. The despotism associated with property (to use 
Proudhon's expression) is resisted by those subject to it and, needless 
to say, the boss does not always win.

B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour? 

Of course there are periods when the demand for labour exceeds supply, but
these periods hold the seeds of depression for capitalism, as workers are
in an excellent position to challenge, both individually and collectively,
their allotted role as commodities. This point is discussed in more detail
in section C.7 (What causes the capitalist business cycle?) and so we will
not do so here. For now it's enough to point out that during normal times
(i.e. over most of the business cycle), capitalists often enjoy extensive 
authority over workers, an authority deriving from the unequal bargaining 
power between capital and labour, as noted by Adam Smith and many others.

However, this changes during times of high demand for labour. To illustrate,
let us assume that supply and demand approximate each other. It is clear 
that such a situation is only good for the worker. Bosses cannot easily 
fire a worker as there is no one to replace them and the workers, 
either collectively by solidarity or individually by "exit" (i.e. quitting 
and moving to a new job), can ensure a boss respects their interests and, 
indeed, can push these interests to the full. The boss finds it hard to 
keep their authority intact or from stopping wages rising and causing a 
profits squeeze. In other words, as unemployment drops, workers power 
increases.

Looking at it another way, giving someone the right to hire and fire an 
input into a production process vests that individual with considerable 
power over that input unless it is costless for that input to move; that 
is unless the input is perfectly mobile. This is only approximated in 
real life for labour during periods of full employment, and so perfect
mobility of *labour* costs problems for a capitalist firm because under
such conditions workers are not dependent on a particular capitalist and 
so the level of worker effort is determined far more by the decisions of 
workers (either collectively or individually) than by managerial authority. 
The threat of firing cannot be used as a threat to increase effort, and 
hence production, and so full employment increases workers power.

With the capitalist firm being a fixed commitment of resources, this
situation is intolerable. Such times are bad for business and so occur
rarely with free market capitalism (we must point out that in neo-classical 
economics, it is assumed that all inputs - including capital - are 
perfectly mobile and so the theory ignores reality and assumes away 
*capitalist production* itself!). 

During the last period of capitalist boom, the post-war period, we can 
see the breakdown of capitalist authority and the fear this held for the
ruling elite. The Trilateral Commission's 1975 report, which attempted to
"understand" the growing discontent among the general population, makes
our point well. In periods of full employment, according to the report,
there is "an excess of democracy." In other words, due to the increased
bargaining power workers gained during a period of high demand for labour,
people started thinking about and acting upon their needs as *humans,* not
as commodities embodying labour power. This naturally had devastating
effects on capitalist and statist authority: "People no longer felt the
same compulsion to obey those whom they had previously considered superior
to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or talent". 

This loosening of the bonds of compulsion and obedience led to "previously
passive or unorganised groups in the population, blacks, Indians, Chicanos, 
white ethnic groups, students and women... embark[ing] on concerted efforts 
to establish their claims to opportunities, rewards, and privileges, which 
they had not considered themselves entitled to before." 

Such an "excess" of participation in politics of course posed a serious
threat to the status quo, since for the elites who authored the report, 
it was considered axiomatic that "the effective operation of a democratic
political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement 
on the part of some individuals and groups. . . . In itself, this marginality 
on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic, but it is also one 
of the factors which has enabled democracy to function effectively." Such 
a statement reveals the hollowness of the establishment's concept of 
'democracy,' which in order to function effectively (i.e. to serve elite 
interests) must be "inherently undemocratic." 

Any period where people feel empowered allows them to communicate with
their fellows, identify their needs and desires, and resist those forces
that deny their freedom to manage their own lives. Such resistance
strikes a deadly blow at the capitalist need to treat people as commodities, 
since (to re-quote Polanyi) people no longer feel that it "is not for the 
commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to what purpose 
it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to change hands, 
and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed." Instead, as 
thinking and feeling people, they act to reclaim their freedom and humanity. 

As noted at the beginning of this section, the economic effects of such
periods of empowerment and revolt are discussed in section C.7. We will
end by quoting the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who noted that a
continuous capitalist boom would *not* be in the interests of the ruling
class. In 1943, in response to the more optimistic Keynesians, he noted
that "to maintain the high level of employment. . . in the subsequent
boom, a strong opposition of 'business leaders' is likely to be
encountered. . . lasting full employment is not at all to their liking.
The workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry' would
be anxious 'to teach them a lesson'" because "under a regime of permanent
full employment, 'the sack' would cease to play its role as a disciplinary
measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined and the self
assurance and class consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes
for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create 
political tension. . . 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' 
are more appreciated by business leaders than profits. Their class interest 
tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view 
and that unemployment is an integral part of the normal capitalist system." 
[cited by Malcolm C. Sawyer, _The Economics of Michal Kalecki_,  p. 139, 
p. 138]

Therefore, periods when the demand for labour outstrips supply are not
healthy for capitalism, as they allow people to assert their freedom and
humanity -- both fatal to the system. This is why news of large numbers of
new jobs sends the stock market plunging and why capitalists are so keen
these days to maintain a "natural" rate of unemployment (that it has to be
maintained indicates that it is *not* "natural"). Kalecki, we must
point out, also correctly predicted the rise of "a powerful bloc" between 
"big business and the rentier interests" against full employment and that 
"they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the 
situation was manifestly unsound." The resulting "pressure of all these
forces, and in particular big business" would "induce the Government to
return to. . . orthodox policy." [Kalecki, cited Op. Cit., p. 140] This 
is exactly what happened in the 1970s, with the monetarists and other 
sections of the "free market" right providing the ideological support 
for the business lead class war, and whose "theories" (when applied) 
promptly generated massive unemployment, thus teaching the working 
class the required lesson. 

So, although detrimental to profit-making, periods of recession and high 
unemployment are not only unavoidable but are necessary to capitalism in 
order to "discipline" workers and "teach them a lesson." And in all, it 
is little wonder that capitalism rarely produces periods approximating
full employment -- they are *not* in its interests (see also section C.9).
The dynamics of capitalism makes recession and unemployment inevitable,
just as it makes class struggle (which creates these dynamics) inevitable.

B.4.6 But I want to be "left alone"!

It is ironic that supporters of laissez-faire capitalism, such as
"Libertarians" and "anarcho"-capitalists, should claim that they 
want to be "left alone," since capitalism *never* allows this. As 
Max Stirner expressed it: 

"Restless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm 
*enjoyment.* We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . ."
[Max Stirner _The Ego and Its Own_, p. 268]

Capitalism cannot let us "take breath" simply because it needs to 
grow or die, which puts constant pressure on both workers and 
capitalists (see section D.4.1). Workers can never relax or be 
free of anxiety about losing their jobs, because if they do not 
work, they do not eat, nor can they ensure that  their children 
will get a better life. Within the workplace, they are not "left 
alone" by their bosses in order to manage their own activities. 
Instead, they are told what to do, when to do it and how to
do it. Indeed, the history of experiments in workers' control and
self-management within capitalist companies confirms our claims that,
for the worker, capitalism is incompatible with the desire to be
"left alone." As an illustration we will use the "Pilot Program" 
conducted by General Electric between 1968 and 1972.
 
General Electric proposed the "Pilot Program" as a means of overcoming
the problems they faced with introducing Numeric Control (N/C) machinery
into its plant at Lynn River Works, Massachusetts. Faced with rising
tensions on the shop floor, bottle-necks in production and low-quality
products, GE management tried a scheme of "job enrichment" based
on workers' control of production in one area of the plant. By June
1970 the workers' involved were "on their own" (as one manager put
it) and "[i]n terms of group job enlargement this was when the 
Pilot Project really began, with immediate results in increased
output and machine utilisation, and a reduction on manufacturing
losses. As one union official remarked two years later, 'The fact 
that we broke down a traditional policy of GE [that the union could 
never have a hand in managing the business] was in itself satisfying, 
especially when we could throw success up to them to boot.'" [David 
Noble, _Forces of Production_, p. 295]

The project, after some initial scepticism, proved to be a great 
success with the workers involved. Indeed, other workers in the 
factory desired to be included and the union soon tried to get it 
spread throughout the plant and into other GE locations. The success 
of the scheme was that it was based on workers' managing their own
affairs rather than being told what to do by their bosses -- "We
are human beings," said one worker, "and want to be treated as
such." [quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 292] To be fully human means
to be free to govern oneself in all aspects of life, including
production.

However, just after a year of the workers being given control over
their working lives, management stopped the project. Why? "In the
eyes of some management supporters of the 'experiment,' the Pilot
Program was terminated because management as a whole refused to
give up any of its traditional authority . . . [t]he Pilot 
Program foundered on the basic contradiction of capitalist
production: Who's running the shop?" [Noble, Op. Cit., p. 318]

Noble goes on to argue that to GE's top management, "the union's
desire to extend the program appeared as a step toward greater
workers control over production and, as such, a threat to the
traditional authority rooted in private ownership of the means
of production. Thus the decision to terminate represented a
defence not only of the prerogatives of production supervisors
and plant managers but also of the power vested in property
ownership." He notes that this result was not an isolated case 
and that the "demise of the GE Pilot Program followed the typical 
pattern for such 'job enrichment experiments'" [Op. Cit., p. 318 
and p. 320] Even though "[s]everal dozen well-documented 
experiments show that productivity increases and social problems
decrease when workers participate in the work decisions affecting
their lives" [Department of Health, Education and Welfare study
quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 322] such schemes are ended by
bosses seeking to preserve their own power, the power that flows
from private property.

As one worker in the GE Pilot Program stated, "[w]e just want to
be left alone." They were not -- capitalist social relations
prohibit such a possibility (as Noble correctly notes, "the 'way
of life' for the management meant controlling the lives of others"
[Op. Cit., p. 294 and p. 300]). In spite of improved productivity,
projects in workers' control are scrapped because they undermined 
both the power of the capitalists -- and by undermining their power, 
you potentially undermine their profits too ("If we're all one, 
for manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably,
just like a co-op business." [GE Pilot Program worker, quoted by
Noble, Op. Cit., p. 295]). 

As we argue in more detail in section J.5.12, profit maximisation 
can work against efficiency, meaning that capitalism can harm the 
overall economy by promoting less efficient production techniques 
(i.e. hierarchical ones against egalitarian ones) because it is in 
the interests of capitalists to do so and the capitalist market 
rewards that behaviour. This is because, ultimately, profits are 
unpaid labour. If you empower labour, give workers' control over 
their work then they will increase efficiency and productivity 
(they know how to do their job the best) but you also erode 
authority structures within the workplace. Workers' will seek 
more and more control (freedom naturally tries to grow) and 
this, as the Pilot Program worker clearly saw, implies a
co-operative workplace in which workers', *not* managers, decide
what to do with the surplus produced. By threatening power, you
threaten profits (or, more correctly, who controls the profit and
where it goes). With the control over production *and* who gets
to control any surplus in danger, it is unsurprising that 
companies soon abandon such schemes and return to the old, 
less efficient, hierarchical schemes based on "Do what you are 
told, for as long as you are told." Such a regime is hardly fit
for free people and, as Noble notes, the regime that replaced 
the GE Pilot Program was "designed to 'break' the pilots of their 
new found 'habits' of self-reliance, self-discipline, and 
self-respect." [Op. Cit., p. 307]

Thus the experience of workers' control project within capitalist
firms indicates well that capitalism cannot "leave you alone" if
you are a wage slave.

Moreover, capitalists themselves cannot relax because they must ensure 
their workers' productivity rises faster than their workers' wages, 
otherwise their business will fail (see sections C.2 and C.3). This 
means that every company has to innovate or be left behind, to be 
put out of business or work. Hence the boss is not "left alone" -- 
their decisions are made under the duress of market forces, of the 
necessities imposed by competition on individual capitalists. Restless 
acquisition -- in this context, the necessity to accumulate capital 
in order to survive in the market -- always haunts the capitalist. 
And since unpaid labour is the key to capitalist expansion, work 
must continue to exist and grow -- necessitating the boss to control
the working hours of the worker to ensure that they produce more
goods than they receive in wages. The boss is not "left alone" nor
do they leave the worker alone.

These facts, based upon the authority relations associated with 
private property and relentless competition, ensure that the 
desire to be "left alone" cannot be satisfied under capitalism.

As Murray Bookchin observes:

"Despite their assertions of autonomy and distrust of state authority
. . . classical liberal thinkers did not in the last instance hold to 
the notion that the individual is completely free from lawful guidance. 
Indeed, their interpretation of autonomy actually presupposed quite 
definite arrangements beyond the individual -- notably, the laws of 
the marketplace. Individual autonomy to the contrary, these laws 
constitute a social organising system in which all 'collections of
individuals' are held under the sway of the famous 'invisible hand' of
competition. Paradoxically, the laws of the marketplace override the
exercise of 'free will' by the same sovereign individuals who otherwise
constitute the "collection of individuals." ["Communalism: The Democratic 
Dimension of Anarchism", pp. 1-17, _Democracy and Nature_ no. 8, p. 4]

Human interaction is an essential part of life. Anarchism proposes 
to eliminate only undesired social interactions and authoritarian
impositions, which are inherent in capitalism and indeed in any
hierarchical form of socio-economic organisation (e.g. state socialism). 
Hermits soon become less than human, as social interaction enriches and
develops individuality. Capitalism may attempt to reduce us to hermits,
only "connected" by the market, but such a denial of our humanity and
individuality inevitably feeds the spirit of revolt. In practice the
"laws" of the market and the hierarchy of capital will never "leave one
alone," but instead, crush one's individuality and freedom. Yet this
aspect of capitalism conflicts with the human "instinct for freedom," 
as Noam Chomsky describes it, and hence there arises a counter-tendency 
toward radicalisation and rebellion among any oppressed people 
(see section J).

One last point. The desire to "be left alone" often expresses two 
drastically different ideas -- the wish to be your own master and
manage your own affairs and the desire by bosses and landlords to 
have more power over their property. However, the authority exercised 
by such owners over their property is also exercised over *those who 
use that property.* Therefore, the notion of "being left alone"
contains two contradictory aspects within a class ridden and
hierarchical society. Obviously anarchists are sympathetic to the
first, inherently libertarian, aspect -- the desire to manage your 
own life, in your own way -- but we reject the second aspect and
any implication that it is in the interests of the governed to 
leave those in power alone. Rather, it is in the interest of the
governed to subject those with authority over them to as much 
control as possible -- for obvious reasons.

Therefore, working people are more or less free to the extent that 
they *restrict* the ability of their bosses to be "left alone." One 
of the aims of anarchists within a capitalist society is *ensure* that 
those in power are *not* "left alone" to exercise their authority over 
those subject to it. We see solidarity, direct action and workplace and 
community organisation as a means of interfering with the authority of 
the state, capitalists and property owners until such time as we can 
destroy such authoritarian social relationships once and for all. 

Hence anarchist dislike of the term "laissez-faire" -- within a class
society it can only mean protecting the powerful against the working
class (under the banner of "neutrally" enforcing property rights and
so *the power derived from them*). However, we are well aware of the
other, libertarian, vision expressed in the desire to be "left alone."
That is the reason we have discussed why capitalist society can never 
actually achieve that desire -- it is handicapped by its hierarchical 
and competitive nature -- and how such a desire can be twisted into a
means of enhancing the power of the few over the many.

B.5 Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?

A key element of the social vision propounded by capitalism, particularly
"libertarian" capitalism, is that of "voting" by the "customer," which 
is compared to political voting by the "citizen." According to Milton
Friedman, "when you vote in the supermarket, you get precisely what you
voted for and so does everyone else." Such "voting" with one's pocket
is then claimed to be an example of the wonderful "freedom" people enjoy
under capitalism (as opposed to "socialism," always equated by 
right-wingers with *state* socialism, which will be discussed in 
section H). However, in evaluating this claim, the difference between 
customers and citizens is critical.

The customer chooses between products on the shelf that have been designed
and built by others for the purpose of profit. The consumer is the
end-user, essentially a spectator rather than an actor, merely choosing
between options created elsewhere by others. Market decision making is
therefore fundamentally *passive* and *reactionary,* i.e. based on reacting
to developments initiated by others. In contrast, the "citizen" is
actively involved, at least ideally, in all stages of the decision making
process, either directly or through elected delegates. Therefore, given
decentralised and participatory-democratic organisations, decision making
by citizens can be *pro-active,* based on human *action* in which one
takes the initiative and sets the agenda oneself. Indeed, most supporters
of the "citizen" model support it precisely *because* it actively involves
individuals in participating in social decision making, so creating an
educational aspect to the process and developing the abilities and powers 
of those involved.

In addition, the power of the consumer is not evenly distributed across
society. Thus the expression "voting" when used in a market context expresses
a radically different idea than the one usually associated with it. In
political voting everyone gets one vote, in the market it is one vote per
dollar. What sort of "democracy" is it that gives one person more votes
than tens of thousands of others combined?

Therefore the "consumer" idea fails to take into account the differences
in power that exist on the market as well as assigning an essentially
passive role to the individual. At best they can act on the market as
isolated individuals through their purchasing power. However, such a
position is part of the problem for, as E.F. Schumacher argues, the 
"buyer is essentially a bargain hunter; he is not concerned with the 
origin of the goods or the conditions under which they have been 
produced. His sole concern is to obtain the best value for money." 
He goes on to note that the market "therefore respects only the surface
of society and its significance relates to the momentary situation 
as it exists there and then. There is no probing into the depths of 
things, into the natural or social facts that lie behind them." 
[_Small is Beautiful_, p. 29]

Indeed, the "customer" model actually works *against* any attempt to 
"probe" the facts of things. Firstly, consumers rarely know the significance 
or implications of the goods they are offered because the price mechanism 
withholds such information from them.  Secondly, because the atomistic 
nature of the market makes discussion about the "why" and "how" of 
production difficult -- we get to choose between various "whats". 
Instead of critically evaluating the pros and cons of certain economic 
practices, all we are offered is the option of choosing between things 
already produced. We can only *re*-act when the damage is already done 
by picking the option which does least damage (often we do not have even 
that choice). And to discover a given products social and ecological 
impact we have to take a pro-active role by joining groups which provide 
this sort of information (information which, while essential for a 
rational decision, the market does not and cannot provide).

Moreover, the "consumer" model fails to recognise that the decisions we
make on the market to satisfy our "wants" are determined by social and
market forces. What we are capable of wanting is relative to the forms of
social organisation we live in. For example, people choose to buy cars
because General Motors bought up and destroyed the tram network in the
1930s and people buy "fast food" because they have no time to cook 
because of increasing working hours. This means that our decisions within 
the market are often restricted by economic pressures. For example, the 
market forces firms, on pain of bankruptcy, to do whatever possible
to be cost-effective. Firms that pollute, have bad working conditions 
and so on often gain competitive advantage in so doing and other firms
either have to follow suit or go out of business. A "race to the bottom"
ensures, with individuals making "decisions of desperation" just to 
survive. Individual commitments to certain values, in other words, may
become irrelevant simply because the countervailing economic pressures 
are simply too intense (little wonder Robert Owen argued that the profit 
motive was "a principle entirely unfavourable to individual and public 
happiness"). 

And, of course, the market also does not, and cannot, come up with goods that 
we do not want in our capacity as consumers but desire to protect for future 
generations or because of ecological reasons. By making the protection of
the planet, eco-systems and other such "goods" dependent on the market,
capitalism ensures that unless we put our money where our mouth is we can 
have no say in the protection of such goods as eco-systems, historical sites,
and so on. The need to protect such "resources" in the long term is ignored
in favour of short-termism -- indeed, if we do not "consume" such products
today they will not be there tomorrow. Placed within a society that the
vast majority of people often face difficulties making ends meet, this 
means that capitalism can never provide us with goods which we would like
to see available as *people* (either for others or for future generations or
just to protect the planet) but cannot afford or desire as *consumers.*

It is clearly a sign of the increasing dominance of capitalist ideology
that the "customer" model is being transferred to the political arena. 
This reflects the fact that the increasing scale of political institutions
has reinforced the tendency noted earlier for voters to become passive
spectators, placing their "support" behind one or another "product" (i.e.
party or leader). As Murray Bookchin comments, "educated, knowledgeable
citizens become reduced to mere taxpayers who exchange money for
'services'" [_Remaking Society_, p. 71]. In practice, due to state
centralism, this turns the political process into an extension of the
market, with "citizens" being reduced to "consumers." Or, in Erich Fromm's
apt analysis, "The functioning of the political machinery in a democratic
country is not essentially different from the procedure on the commodity
market. The political parties are not too different from big commercial
enterprises, and the professional politicians try to sell their wares to
the public" [_The Sane Society_, pp. 186-187]. 

But does it matter? Friedman suggests that being a customer is *better*
than being a citizen as you get "precisely" what you, and everyone else,
wants.

The key questions here are whether people always get what they want when
they shop. Do consumers who buy bleached newsprint and toilet paper
*really* want tons of dioxins and other organochlorides in rivers, lakes
and coastal waters? Do customers who buy cars *really* want traffic jams,
air pollution, motorways carving up the landscape and the greenhouse effect? 
And what of those who do not buy these things? They are also affected by the 
decisions of others. The notion that only the consumer is affected by his 
or her decision is nonsense -- as is the childish desire to get "precisely" 
what you want, regardless of the social impact. 

Perhaps Friedman could claim that when we consume we also approve of its
impact. But when we "vote" on the market we cannot say that we approved of 
the resulting pollution (or distribution of income or power) because that 
was not a choice on offer. Such changes are *pre-defined* or an aggregate 
outcome and can only be chosen by a collective decision. In this way we 
can modify outcomes we could bring about individually but which harm us 
collectively. And unlike the market, in politics we can *change our 
minds* and revert back to a former state, undoing the mistakes made. No 
such option is available on the market.

So Friedman's claims that in elections "you end up with something different 
from what you voted for" is equally applicable to the market place.

These considerations indicate that the "consumer" model of human action is 
somewhat limited (to say the least!). Instead we need to recognise the 
importance of the "citizen" model, which we should point out includes the
"consumer" model within it. Taking part as an active member of the
community does not imply that we stop making individual consumption 
choices between those available, all it does is potentially enrich our 
available options by removing lousy choices (such as ecology or profit,
cheap goods or labour rights, family or career).  

In addition we must stress its role in developing those who practice
the "citizen" model and how it can enrich our social and personal life. 
Being active within participatory institutions fosters and develops 
an active, "public-spirited" type of character. Citizens, because they 
are making *collective* decisions have to weight other interests *as 
well as* their own and so consider the impact on themselves, others, 
society and the environment of possible decisions. It is, by its very 
nature, an educative process by which all benefit by developing their 
critical abilities and expanding their definition of self-interest to 
take into account themselves as part of a society and eco-system 
*as well as* as an individual. The "consumer" model, with its passive 
and exclusively private/money orientation develops few of people's 
faculties and narrows their self-interest to such a degree that 
their "rational" actions can actually (indirectly) harm them.

As Noam Chomsky argues, it is "now widely realised that the economists 
'externalities' can no longer be consigned to footnotes. No one who gives 
a moment's thought to the problems of contemporary society can fail to be 
aware of the social costs of consumption and production, the progressive 
destruction of the environment, the utter irrationality of the utilisation 
of contemporary technology, the inability of a system based on profit or 
growth maximisation to deal with needs that can only be expressed 
collectively, and the enormous bias this system imposes towards 
maximisation of commodities for personal use in place of the general 
improvement of the quality of life." [_Radical Priorities_, pp. 190-1]

The "citizen" model takes on board the fact that the sum of rational 
individual decisions may not yield a rational collective outcome (which, 
we must add, harms the individuals involved and so works against their 
self-interest). Social standards, created and enriched by a process of 
discussion and dialogue can be effective in realms where the atomised 
"consumer" model is essentially powerless to achieve constructive social 
change, never mind protect the individual from "agreeing" to "decisions of 
desperation" that leave them and society as a whole worse off (see also
sections E.4 and E.5). 

This is *not* to suggest that anarchists desire to eliminate individual
decision making, far from it. An anarchist society will be based upon
individuals making decisions on what they want to consume, where they
want to work, what kind of work they want to do and so on. So the aim 
of the "citizen" model is not to "replace" the "consumer" model,
but only to improve the social environment within which we make our 
individual consumption decisions. What the "citizen" model of human 
action desires is to place such decisions within a social framework, 
one that allows each individual to take an active part in improving the 
quality of life for us all by removing "Hobson choices" as far as possible. 

B.6 But won't decisions made by individuals with their own money be 
    the best? 

This question refers to an argument commonly used by capitalists to
justify the fact that investment decisions are removed from public control
under capitalism, with private investors making all the decisions. 
Clearly the assumption behind this argument is that individuals suddenly
lose their intelligence when they get together and discuss their common
interests. But surely, through debate, we can enrich our ideas by social
interaction. In the marketplace we do not discuss but instead act as
atomised individuals.

This issue involves the "Isolation Paradox," according to which the very
logic of individual decision-making is different from that of collective
decision-making. An example is the "tyranny of small decisions." Let us
assume that in the soft drink industry some companies start to produce
(cheaper) non-returnable bottles. The end result of this is that most, if
not all, the companies making returnable bottles lose business and switch
to non-returnables. Result? Increased waste and environmental destruction.

This is because market price fails to take into account social costs and 
benefits, indeed it *mis*-estimates them for both buyer/seller and to 
others not involved in the transaction. This is because, as Schumacher 
points out, the "strength of the idea of private enterprise lies in 
its terrifying simplicity. It suggests that the totality of life can 
be reduced to one aspect - profits . . ." [_Small is Beautiful_, p. 215]
But life cannot be reduced to one aspect without impoverishing it and
so capitalism "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

Therefore the market promotes "the tyranny of small decisions" and this
can have negative outcomes for those involved. The capitalist "solution" 
to this problem is no solution, namely to act after the event. Only after 
the decisions have been made and their effects felt can action be taken. 
But by then the damage has been done. Can suing a company *really* replace 
a fragile eco-system? In addition, the economic context has been significantly 
altered, because investment decisions are often difficult to unmake. 

In other words, the operations of the market provide an unending source of 
examples for the argument that the aggregate results of the pursuit of 
private interest may well be collectively damaging. And as collectives are
made up of individuals, that means damaging to the individuals involved.
The remarkable ideological success of "free market" capitalism is to 
identify the anti-social choice with self-interest, so that any choice 
in the favour of the interests which we share collectively is treated 
as a piece of self-sacrifice. However, by atomising decision making, the 
market often actively works against the self-interest of the individuals 
that make it up.

Game theory is aware that the sum of rational choices do not automatically
yield a rational group outcome. Indeed, it terms such situations as 
"collective action" problems. By not agreeing common standards, a "race
to the bottom" can ensue in which a given society reaps choices that we
as individuals really don't want. The rational pursuit of individual
self-interest leaves the group, and so most individuals, worse off. The
problem is not bad individual judgement (far from it, the individual is
the only person able to know what is best for them in a given situation).
It is the absence of social discussion and remedies that compels people
to make unbearable choices because the available menu presents no good
options. 

By *not* discussing the impact of their decisions with everyone who will
be affected, the individuals in question have not made a better decision. 
Of course, under our present highly centralised statist and capitalist
system, such a discussion would be impossible to implement, and its
closest approximation -- the election process -- is too vast, bureaucratic
and dominated by wealth to do much beyond passing a few toothless laws
which are generally ignored when they hinder profits.

However, let's consider what the situation would be like under libertarian
socialism, where the local community assemblies discuss the question of
returnable bottles along with the workforce. Here the function of specific
interest groups (such as consumer co-operatives, ecology groups, workplace
Research and Development action committees and so on) would play a
critical role in producing information. Knowledge, as Bakunin, Kropotkin,
etc. knew, is widely dispersed throughout society and the role of interested
parties is essential in making it available to others. Based upon this
information and the debate it provokes, the collective decision reached 
would most probably favour returnables over waste. This would be a 
better decision from a social and ecological point of view, and one that
would benefit the individuals who discussed and agreed upon its effects on
themselves and their society.

In other words, anarchists think we have to take an active part in creating 
the menu as well as picking options from it which reflect our individual
tastes and interests.

It needs to be emphasised that such a system does not involve discussing
and voting on everything under the sun, which would paralyse all
activity. To the contrary, most decisions would be left to those
interested (e.g. workers decide on administration and day-to-day decisions
within the factory), the community decides upon policy (e.g. returnables
over waste). Neither is it a case of electing people to decide for us, as
the decentralised nature of the confederation of communities ensures that
power lies in the hands of local people.

This process in no way implies that "society" decides what an individual
is to consume. That, like all decisions affecting the individual only, is
left entirely up to the person involved. Communal decision-making is for
decisions that impact both the individual and society, allowing those
affected by it to discuss it among themselves as equals, thus creating a
rich social context within which individuals can act. This is an obvious
improvement over the current system, where decisions that often profoundly
alter people's lives are left to the discretion of an elite class of
managers and owners, who are supposed to "know best." 

There is, of course, the danger of "tyranny of the majority" in any
democratic system, but in a direct libertarian democracy, this danger
would be greatly reduced, for reasons discussed in section I.5.6 (Won't 
there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under libertarian 
socialism?).

B.7 What classes exist within modern society?

For anarchists, class analysis is an important means of understanding the
world and what is going on in it. While recognition of the fact that classes
actually exist is less prevalent now than it once was, this does not mean
that classes have ceased to exist. Quite the contrary. As we'll see, it
means only that the ruling class has been more successful than before in
obscuring the existence of class.

Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual
and the sources of power within society determines his or her class. We
live in a class society in which a few people possess far more political
and economic power than the majority, who usually work for the minority
that controls them and the decisions that affect them. This means that
class is based both on exploitation *and* oppression, with some controlling
the labour of others for their own gain. The means of oppression have
been indicated in earlier parts of section B, while section C (What are the 
myths of capitalist economics?) indicates exactly how exploitation occurs 
within a society apparently based on free and equal exchange. In addition,
it also highlights the effects on the economic system itself of this
exploitation. The social and political impact of the system and the classes 
and hierarchies it creates is discussed in depth in section D (How does 
statism and capitalism affect society?).

We must emphasise at the outset that the idea of the "working class" as
composed of nothing but industrial workers is simply false. It is *not* 
applicable today, if it ever was. Power, in terms of hire/fire and
investment decisions, is the important thing. Ownership of capital 
as a means of determining a person's class, while still important, 
does not tell the whole story. An obvious example is that of the
higher layers of management within corporations. They have massive 
power within the company, basically taking over the role held by the 
actual capitalist in smaller firms. While they may technically be 
"salary slaves" their power and position in the social hierarchy 
indicate that they are members of the ruling class in practice (and,
consequently, their income is best thought of as a share of profits
rather than a wage). Much the same can be said of politicians and
state bureaucrats whose power and influence does not derive from the
ownership of the means of production but rather then control over
the means of coercion. Moreover, many large companies are owned by 
other large companies, through pension funds, multinationals, etc. 
(in 1945, 93% of shares were owned by individuals; by 1997, this had
fallen to 43%). Needless to say, if working-class people own shares 
that does not make them capitalists as the dividends are *not* enough
to live on nor do they give them any say in how a company is run).

For most anarchists, there are two main classes: 

(1) Working class -- those who have to work for a living but have no real
control over that work or other major decisions that affect them, i.e.
order-takers. This class also includes the unemployed, pensioners, etc.,
who have to survive on handouts from the state. They have little wealth
and little (official) power. This class includes the growing service worker
sector, most (if not the vast majority) of "white collar" workers as well 
as traditional "blue collar" workers. Most self-employed people would be 
included in this class, as would the bulk of peasants and artisans 
(where applicable). In a nutshell, the producing classes and those who
either were producers or will be producers. This group makes up the vast
majority of the population. 

(2) Ruling class -- those who control investment decisions, determine 
high level policy, set the agenda for capital and state. This is 
the elite at the top, owners or top managers of large companies, 
multinationals and banks (i.e. the capitalists), owners of large 
amounts of land (i.e. landlords or the aristocracy, if applicable), 
top-level state officials, politicians, and so forth. They have real 
power within the economy and/or state, and so control society. In a
nutshell, the owners of power (whether political, social or economic)
or the master class. This group consists of around the top 5-15% of 
the population.

Obviously there are "grey" areas in any society, individuals and 
groups who do not fit exactly into either the working or ruling class.
Such people include those who work but have some control over other
people, e.g. power of hire/fire. These are the people who make the minor,
day-to-day decisions concerning the running of capital or state. This
area includes lower to middle management, professionals, and small
capitalists. 

There is some argument within the anarchist movement whether this
"grey" area constitutes another ("middle") class or not. Most anarchists
say no, most of this "grey" area are working class, others (such
as the British _Class War Federation_) argue it is a different class. 
One thing is sure, all anarchists agree that most people in this "grey" 
area have an interest in getting rid of the current system just as much 
as the working class (we should point out here that what is usually 
called "middle class" in the USA and elsewhere is nothing of the kind, 
and usually refers to working class people with decent jobs, homes, etc. 
As class is considered a rude word in polite society in the USA, such 
mystification is to be expected).

So, there will be exceptions to this classification scheme. However, 
most of society share common interests, as they face the economic
uncertainties and hierarchical nature of capitalism.

We do not aim to fit all of reality into this class scheme, but only to 
develop it as reality indicates, based on our own experiences of the
changing patterns of modern society. Nor is this scheme intended to
suggest that all members of a class have identical interests or that
competition does not exist between members of the same class, as it does
between the classes. Capitalism, by its very nature, is a competitive
system. As Malatesta pointed out, "one must bear in mind that on the one
hand the bourgeoisie (the property owners) are always at war amongst 
themselves. . . and that on the other hand the government, though springing
from the bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends, as every servant 
and every protector, to achieve its own emancipation and to dominate whoever
it protects. Thus the game of the swings, the manoeuvres, the concessions
and the withdrawals, the attempts to find allies among the people and 
against the conservatives, and among conservatives against the people, 
which is the science of the governors, and which blinds the ingenuous and
phlegmatic who always wait for salvation to come down to them from above." 
[_Anarchy_, p. 25]

However, no matter how much inter-elite rivalry goes on, at the slightest
threat to the system from which they benefit, the ruling class will unite
to defend their common interests. Once the threat passes, they will return
to competing among themselves for power, market share and wealth.
Unfortunately, the working class rarely unites as a class, mainly due to
its chronic economic and social position. At best, certain sections unite
and experience the benefits and pleasure of co-operation. Anarchists, by
their ideas and action try to change this situation and encourage 
solidarity within the working class in order to resist, and ultimately
get rid of, capitalism. However, their activity is helped by the 
fact that those in struggle often realise that "solidarity is strength"
and so start to work together and unite their struggles against their
common enemy. Indeed, history is full of such developments.

B.7.1 But do classes actually exist?

So do classes actually exist, or are anarchists making them up? The fact
that we even need to consider this question points to the pervasive 
propaganda efforts by the ruling class to suppress class consciousness,
which will be discussed further on. First, however, let's examine some
statistics, taking the USA as an example. We have done so because the
state has the reputation of being a land of opportunity and capitalism.
Moreover, class is seldom talked about there (although its business 
class is *very* class conscious). Moreover, when countries have followed
the US model of freer capitalism (for example, the UK), a similar 
explosion of inequality develops along side increased poverty rates 
and concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

There are two ways of looking into class, by income and by wealth.
Of the two, the distribution of wealth is the most important to 
understanding the class structure as this represents your assets, 
what you own rather than what you earn in a year. Given that wealth 
is the source of income, this represents the impact and power of 
private property and the class system it represents. After all,
while all employed workers have an income (i.e. a wage), their 
actual wealth usually amounts to their personal items and their
house (if they are lucky). As such, their wealth generates little
or no income, unlike the owners of resources like companies, 
land and patents. Unsurprisingly, wealth insulates its holders 
from personal economic crises, like unemployment and sickness, as 
well as gives its holders social and political power. It, and its 
perks, can also be passed down the generations. Equally 
unsurprisingly, the distribution of wealth is much more unequal 
than the distribution of income.

At the start of the 1990s, the share of total US income was as 
follows: one third went to the top 10% of the population, the
next 30% gets another third and the bottom 60% gets the last
third. Dividing the wealth into thirds, we find that the top 
1% owns a third, the next 9% owns a third, and bottom 90% owns
the rest. [David Schweickart, _After Capitalism_, p. 92] Over 
the 1990s, the inequalities in US society have continued to 
increase. In 1980, the richest fifth of Americans had incomes
about ten times those of the poorest fifth. A decade later,
they has twelve times. By 2001, they had incomes over fourteen
times greater. [Doug Henwood, _After the New Economy_, p. 79]
Looking at the figures for private family wealth, we find 
that in 1976 the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned
19% of it, the next 9% owned 30% and the bottom 90% of the 
population owned 51%. By 1995 the top 1% owned 40%, more than 
owned by the bottom 92% of the US population combined -- the 
next 9% had 31% while the bottom 90% had only 29% of total
(see Edward N. Wolff, _Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing 
Inequality in America_ for details).

So in terms of wealth ownership, we see a system in which a very small
minority own the means of life. In 1992 the richest 1% of households -- 
about 2 million adults -- owned 39% of the stock owned by individuals. 
The top 10%, owned over 81%. In other words, the bottom 90% of the 
population had a smaller share (23%) of investable capital of all 
kinds than the richest 1/2% (29%). Stock ownership was even more 
densely concentrated, with the richest 5% holding 95% of all shares. 
[Doug Henwood, _Wall Street: Class racket_] Three years later, 
"the richest 1% of households . . . owned 42% of the stock owned by 
individuals, and 56% of the bonds . . . the top 10% together owned 
nearly 90% of both." Given that around 50% of all corporate stock is
owned by households, this means that 1% of the population "owns a 
quarter of the productive capital and future profits of corporate 
America; the top 10% nearly half." [Doug Henwood, _Wall Street_, 
pp. 66-7] Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go 
to the bottom 60 percent.

Henwood summarises the situation by noting that "the richest tenth
of the population has a bit over three-quarters of all the wealth
in this society, and the bottom half has almost none -- but it
has lots of debt." Most middle-income people have most of their
(limited) wealth in their homes and if we look at non-residential
wealth we find a "very, very concentrated" situation. The "bottom 
half of the population claimed about 20% of all income in 2001 --
but only 2% of non-residential wealth. The richest 5% of the 
population claimed about 23% of income, a bit more than the entire
bottom half. But it owned almost two-thirds -- 65% -- of the
wealth." [_After the New Economy_, p. 122] 

In terms of income, the period since 1970 has also been marked by 
increasing inequalities and concentration: 

"According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel 
Saez -- confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office -- 
between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent 
of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income 
of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 
percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent 
rose 599 percent." [Paul Krugman, "The Death of Horatio Alger", 
_The Nation_, January 5, 2004]

Doug Henwood provides some more details on income changes [Op. Cit., 
p. 90]:

				Changes in income, 1977-1999

		    real income			Share of total income
			growth		------------------------------
		     1977-99		1977		1999		change

poorest 20%		-9%			5.7%		4.2%		-1.5%
second 20%		+1			11.5		9.7		-1.8		
middle 20%		+8			16.4		14.7		-1.7
fourth 20%		+14			22.8		21.3		-1.5
top 20%		+43			44.2		50.4		+6.2
top 1%		+115			7.3		12.9		+5.6

By far the biggest gainers from the wealth concentration since the 1980s
have been the super-rich. The closer you get to the top, the bigger the 
gains. In other words, it is not simply that the top 20 percent of families 
have had bigger percentage gains than the rest. Rather, the top 5 percent 
have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 
4 per cent, and so on.

As such, if someone argues that while the share of national income 
going to the top 10 percent of earners has increased that it does
not matter because anyone with an income over $81,000 is in that top 
10 percent they are missing the point. The lower end of the top
ten per cent were not the big winners over the last 30 years. Most
of the gains in the share in that top ten percent went to the top 
1 percent (who earn at least $230,000). Of these gains, 60 percent 
went to the top 0.1 percent (who earn more than $790,000). And of 
these gains, almost half went to the top 0.01 percent (a mere 
13,000 people who had an income of at least $3.6 million and an 
average income of $17 million). [Paul Krugman, "For Richer",
_New York Times_, 20/10/02]

All this proves that classes do in fact exist, with wealth and power
concentrating at the top of society, in the hands of the few.

To put this inequality of income into some perspective, the average 
full-time Wal-Mart employee was paid only about $17,000 a year in 
2004. Benefits are few, with less than half the company's workers 
covered by its health care plan. In the same year Wal-Mart's chief 
executive, Scott Lee Jr., was paid $17.5 million. In other words, 
every two weeks he was paid about as much as his average employee 
would earn after a lifetime working for him. 

Since the 1970s, most Americans have had only modest salary increases
(if that). The average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 
dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) went from $32,522 in 1970 to 
$35,864 in 1999. That is a mere 10 percent increase over nearly 30 
years. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, 
the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from 
$1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 
million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers. 

Yet even here, we are likely to miss the real picture. The average
salary is misleading as this does not reflect the distribution of
wealth. For example, in the UK in the early 1990s, two-thirds of
workers earned the average wage or below and only a third above. 
To talk about the "average" income, therefore, is to disguise 
remarkable variation. In the US, adjusting for inflation, average 
family income -- total income divided by the number of families -- 
grew 28% between 1979 and 1997. The median family income -- the 
income of a family in the middle (i.e. the income where half of
families earn more and half less) grew by only 10%. The median
is a better indicator of how typical American families are doing
as the distribution of income is so top heavy in the USA (i.e.
the average income is considerably higher than the median). It
should also be noted that the incomes of the bottom fifth of 
families actually fell slightly. In other words, the benefits of 
economic growth over nearly two decades have *not* trickled down 
to ordinary families. Median family income has risen only about 
0.5% per year. Even worse, "just about all of that increase was 
due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real 
wages." [Paul Krugman, "For Richer", Op. Cit.]

So if America does have higher average or per capita income than 
other advanced countries, it is simply because the rich are richer.
This means that a high average income level can be misleading if
a large amount of national income is concentrated in relatively
few hands. This means that large numbers of Americans are worse 
off economically than their counterparts in other advanced countries.
Thus Europeans have, in general, shorter working weeks and longer
holidays than Americans. They may have a lower average income than 
the United States but they do not have the same inequalities. This
means that the median European family has a standard of living 
roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family -- wages
may even be higher.

As Doug Henwood notes, "[i]nternational measures put the United States 
in a disgraceful light . . . The soundbite version of the LIS 
[Luxembourg Income Study] data is this: for a country th[at]
rich, [it] ha[s] a lot of poor people." Henwood looked at both
relative and absolute measures of income and poverty using the
cross-border comparisons of income distribution provided by the LIS
and discovered that "[f]or a country that thinks itself universally
middle class [i.e. middle income], the United States has the 
second-smallest middle class of the nineteen countries for which
good LIS data exists." Only Russia, a country in near-total collapse
was worse (40.9% of the population were middle income compared to
46.2% in the USA. Households were classed as poor if their incomes
were under 50 percent of the national medium; near-poor, between
50 and 62.5 percent; middle, between 62.5 and 150 percent; and
well-to-do, over 150 percent. The USA rates for poor (19.1%), 
near-poor (8.1%) and middle (46.2%) were worse than European 
countries like Germany (11.1%, 6.5% and 64%), France (13%, 7.2%
and 60.4%) and Belgium (5.5%, 8.0% and 72.4%) as well as Canada
(11.6%, 8.2% and 60%) and Australia (14.8%, 10% and 52.5%).

The reasons for this? Henwood states that the "reasons are clear --
weak unions and a weak welfare state. The social-democratic states --
the ones that interfere most with market incomes -- have the largest
[middles classes]. The US poverty rate is nearly twice the average
of the other eighteen." Needless to say, "middle class" as defined
by income is a very blunt term (as Henwood states). It says nothing
about property ownership or social power, for example, but income
is often taken in the capitalist press as the defining aspect of
"class" and so is useful to analyse in order to refute the claims
that the free-market promotes general well-being (i.e. a larger
"middle class"). That the most free-market nation has the worse
poverty rates *and* the smallest "middle class" indicates well the
anarchist claim that capitalism, left to its own devices, will
benefit the strong (the ruling class) over the weak (the working
class) via "free exchanges" on the "free" market (as we argue in
section C.7, only during periods of full employment -- and/or wide
scale working class solidarity and militancy -- does the balance 
of forces change in favour of working class people. Little wonder, 
then, that periods of full employment also see falling inequality -- 
see James K. Galbraith's _Created Unequal_ for more details on
the correlation of unemployment and inequality).

Of course, it could be objected that this relative measure of poverty
and income ignores the fact that US incomes are among the highest
in the world, meaning that the US poor may be pretty well off by
foreign standards. Henwood refutes this claim, noting that "even on
absolute measures, the US performance is embarrassing. LIS researcher
Lane Kenworthy estimated poverty rates for fifteen countries using
the US poverty line as the benchmark. . . Though the United States
has the highest average income, it's far from having the lowest
poverty rate." Only Italy, Britain and Australia had higher levels
of absolute poverty (and Australia exceeded the US value by 0.2%,
11.9% compared to 11.7%). Thus, in both absolute *and* relative
terms, the USA compares badly with European countries. [Doug Henwood,
"Booming, Borrowing, and Consuming: The US Economy in 1999", 
pp. 120-33, _Monthly Review_, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 129-31]

In summary, therefore, taking the USA as being the most capitalist
nation in the developed world, we discover a class system in which 
a very small minority own the bulk of the means of life and get 
most of the income. Compared to other Western countries, the 
class inequalities are greater and the society is more polarised.
Moreover, over the last 20-30 years those inequalities have increased
spectacularly. The ruling elite have become richer and wealth has
flooded upwards rather than trickled down. 

The cause of the increase in wealth and income polarisation is not hard
to find. It is due to the increased economic and political power of the 
capitalist class and the weakened position of working class people. As 
anarchists have long argued, any "free contract" between the powerful 
and the powerless will benefit the former far more than the latter. 
This means that if the working class's economic and social power is 
weakened then we will be in a bad position to retain a given share
of the wealth we produce but is owned by our bosses and accumulates 
in the hands of the few. 

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there has been an increase in the share of 
total income going to capital (i.e., interest, dividends, and rent) 
and a decrease in the amount going to labour (wages, salaries, and 
benefits). Moreover, an increasing part of the share to labour is 
accruing to high-level management (in electronics, for example, top 
executives used to paid themselves 42 times the average worker in 1991, 
a mere 5 years later it was 220 times as much).

Since the start of the 1980s, unemployment and globalisation has 
weakened the economic and social power of the working class. Due to
the decline in the unions and general labour militancy, wages at the
bottom have stagnated (real pay for most US workers is lower in 2005 
than it was in 1973!). This, combined with "trickle-down" economic 
policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, tax raises for the working 
classes, the maintaining of a "natural" law of unemployment (which 
weakens unions and workers power) and cutbacks in social programs, 
has seriously eroded living standards for all but the upper strata 
-- a process that is clearly leading toward social breakdown, with 
effects that will be discussed later (see section D.9).  

Little wonder Proudhon argued that the law of supply and demand was 
a "deceitful law . . . suitable only for assuring the victory of the 
strong over the weak, of those who own property over those who own 
nothing." [quoted by Alan Ritter, _The Political Thought of 
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 121]

B.7.2 Does social mobility make up for class inequality?

Faced with the massive differences between classes under capitalism
we highlighted in the last section, many supporters of capitalism 
still deny the obvious. They do so by confusing a *caste* system 
with a *class* system. In a caste system, those born into it stay 
in it all their lives. In a class system, the membership of classes 
can and does change over time. 

Therefore, it is claimed, what is important is not the existence 
of classes but of social mobility (usually reflected in income
mobility). According to this argument, if there is a high level 
of social/income mobility then the degree of inequality in any 
given year is unimportant. This is because the redistribution of 
income over a person's life time would be very even. Thus the
inequalities of income and wealth of capitalism does not matter 
as capitalism has high social mobility. 

Milton Friedman puts the argument in this way:

"Consider two societies that have the same distribution of annual
income. In one there is a great mobility and change so that the 
position of particular families in the income hierarchy varies 
widely from year to year. In the other, there is great rigidity 
so that each family stays in the same position. Clearly, in any 
meaningful sense, the second would be the more unequal society.
The one kind of inequality is a sign of dynamic change, social
mobility, equality of opportunity; the other of a status society.
The confusion behind these two kinds of inequality is particularly
important, precisely because competitive free-enterprise capitalism
tends to substitute the one for the other." [_Capitalism and 
Freedom_, p. 171]

As with so many things, Friedman is wrong in his assertion (and
that is all it is, no evidence is provided). The more free market
capitalist regimes have *less* social mobility than those, like
Western Europe, which have extensive social intervention in the
economy. As an added irony, the facts suggest that implementing
Friedman's suggested policies in favour of his beloved "competitive 
free-enterprise capitalism" has made social mobility less, not
greater. In effect, as with so many things, Friedman ensured the
refutation of his own dogmas.

Taking the USA as an example (usually considered one of the most 
capitalist countries in the world) there is income mobility, but 
not enough to make income inequality irrelevant. Census data show 
that 81.6 percent of those families who were in the bottom quintile 
of the income distribution in 1985 were still there in the next 
year; for the top quintile, it was 76.3 percent.

Over longer time periods, there is more mixing but still not that much and 
those who do slip into different quintiles are typically at the borders of 
their category (e.g. those dropping out of the top quintile are typically 
at the bottom of that group). Only around 5% of families rise from bottom 
to top, or fall from top to bottom. In other words, the class structure of 
a modern capitalist society is pretty solid and "much of the movement up 
and down represents fluctuations around a fairly fixed long term 
distribution." [Paul Krugman, _Peddling Prosperity_, p. 143]

Perhaps under a "pure" capitalist system things would be different?
Ronald Reagan helped make capitalism more "free market" in the 1980s,
but there is no indication that income mobility increased significantly
during that time. In fact, according to one study by Greg Duncan of the 
University of Michigan, the middle class shrank during the 1980s, with 
fewer poor families moving up or rich families moving down. Duncan compared
two periods. During the first period (1975 to 1980) incomes were more 
equal than they are today. In the second (1981 to 1985) income inequality 
began soaring. In this period there was a reduction in income mobility
upward from low to medium incomes of over 10%.

Here are the exact figures [cited by Paul Krugman, "The Rich, the Right, 
and the Facts," _The American Prospect_ no. 11, Fall 1992, pp. 19-31]:

	Percentages of families making transitions to and from 
	middle class (5-year period before and after 1980)

	                                Before   After
	Transition                      1980     1980
	----------------------------------------------
	Middle income to low income      8.5%     9.8%
	Middle income to high income     5.8      6.8
	Low income to middle income     35.1     24.6
	High income to middle income    30.8     27.6

Writing in 2004, Krugman returned to this subject. The intervening
twelve years had made things worse. America, he notes, is "more of a 
caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately 
become a lot more rigid." Before the rise of neo-liberalism in the
1980s, America had more intergenerational mobility. "A classic 1978 
survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 
25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 
23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during 
the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream 
of upward mobility was a real experience for many people." However,
a new survey of today's adult men "finds that this number has dropped 
to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility 
has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making 
their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other 
studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly 
rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has 
risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite 
likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were 
born." [Paul Krugman, "The Death of Horatio Alger", _The Nation_, 
January 5, 2004]

British Keynesian economist Will Hutton quotes US data from 2000-1
which "compare[s] the mobility of workers in America with the four
biggest European economies and three Nordic economies." The US "has
the lowest share of workers moving from the bottom fifth of workers
into the second fifth, the lowest share moving into the top 60 
per cent and the highest share unable to sustain full-time employment."
He cites an OECD study which "confirms the poor rates of relative
upward mobility for very low-paid American workers; it also found
that full-time workers in Britain, Italy and Germany enjoy much more
rapid growth in their earnings than those in the US . . . However,
downward mobility was more marked in the US; American workers are
more likely to suffer a reduction in their real earnings than workers
in Europe." Thus even the OECD (the "high priest of deregulation")
was "forced to conclude that countries with more deregulated labour
and product markets (pre-eminently the US) do not appear to have
higher relative mobility, nor do low-paid workers in these economies
experience more upward mobility. The OECD is pulling its punches.
The US experience is worse than Europe's." Numerous studies have
shown that "either there is no difference" in income mobility 
between the USA and Europe "or that there is less mobility in
the US." [_The World We're In_, pp. 166-7]

Little wonder, then, that Doug Henwood argues that "the final appeal
of apologists of the American way is an appeal to our legendary
mobility" fails. In fact, "people generally don't move far from
the income class they are born into, and there is little difference
between US and European mobility patterns. In fact, the United
States has the largest share of what the OECD called 'low-wage'
workers, and the poorest performance on the emergence from the
wage cellar of any country it studied." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

Indeed, "both the US and British poor were more likely to stay
poor for a long period of time: almost half of all people who
were poor for one year stayed poor for five or more years, 
compared with 30% in Canada and 36% in Germany. And, despite 
claims of great upward mobility in the US, 45% of the poor rose
out of poverty in a given year, compared with 45% in the UK,
53% in Germany, and 56% in Canada. And of those who did exit
poverty, 15% of Americans were likely to make a round trip back
under the poverty line, compared with 16% in Germany, 10% in
the UK, and 7% in Canada." [Doug Henwood, _After the New 
Economy_, pp. 136-7]

A 2005 study of income mobility by researchers at the London School 
of Economics (on behalf of the educational charity the Sutton Trust) 
confirms that the more free market a country, the worse is its levels 
of social mobility. [Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin, 
_Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America_, April,
2005] They found that Britain has one of the worst records for 
social mobility in the developed world, beaten only by the USA 
out of eight European and North American countries. Norway was the 
best followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada. 

This means that children born to poor families in Britain and the 
USA are less likely to fulfil their full potential than in other 
countries and are less likely to break free of their backgrounds 
than in the past. In other words, we find it harder to earn more 
money and get better jobs than our parents. Moreover, not only is 
social mobility in Britain much lower than in other advanced 
countries, it is actually declining and has fallen markedly over 
time. The findings were based on studies of two groups of children, 
one set born in the 1950s and the other in the 1970s. In the UK, 
while 17 per cent of the former made it from the bottom quarter 
income group to the top, only 11 per cent of the latter did so. 
Mobility in the Nordic countries was twice that of the UK. Only 
the US did worse than the UK in social mobility.

The puzzle of why, given that there is no evidence of American 
exceptionalism or higher social mobility, the myth persists 
has an easy solution. It has utility for the ruling class in 
maintaining the system. By promoting the myth that people can
find the path to the top easy then the institutions of power
will not be questioned, just the moral character of the many 
who do not.

Needless to say, income mobility does not tell the whole story.
Increases in income do not automatically reflect changes in 
class, far from it. A better paid worker is still working class
and, consequently, still subject to oppression and exploitation
during working hours. As such, income mobility, while important,
does not address inequalities in power. Similarly, income mobility 
does not make up for a class system and its resulting authoritarian 
social relationships and inequalities in terms of liberty, health 
and social influence. And the facts suggest that the capitalist 
dogma of "meritocracy" that attempts to justify this system has 
little basis in reality. Capitalism is a class ridden system and 
while there is some changes in the make-up of each class they are 
remarkably fixed, particularly once you get to the top 5-10% of 
the population (i.e. the ruling class). 

Logically, this is not surprising. There is no reason to think 
that more unequal societies should be more mobile. The greater
the inequality, the more economic power those at the top will
have and, consequently, the harder it will be those at the bottom
to climb upwards. To suggest otherwise is to argue that it is
easier to climb a mountain than a hill! Unsurprisingly the facts
support the common sense analysis that the higher the inequality 
of incomes and wealth, the lower the equality of opportunity and,
consequently, the lower the social mobility.

Finally, we should point out even if income mobility was higher 
it does not cancel out the fact that a class system is marked by 
differences in *power* which accompany the differences in income. 
In other words, because it is possible (in theory) for everyone 
to become a boss this does not make the power and authority that 
bosses have over their workers (or the impact of their wealth on 
society) any more legitimate (just because everyone -- in theory 
-- can become a member of the government does not make government 
any less authoritarian). Because the membership of the boss class 
can change does not negate the fact that such a class exists.

Ultimately, using (usually highly inflated) notions of social
mobility to defend a class system is unconvincing. After all,
in most slave societies slaves could buy their freedom and free 
people could sell themselves into slavery (to pay off debts).
If someone tried to defend slavery with the reference to this
fact of social mobility they would be dismissed as mad. The 
evil of slavery is not mitigated by the fact that a few slaves 
could stop being slaves if they worked hard enough. 

B.7.3 Why is the existence of classes denied?

It is clear, then, that classes do exist, and equally clear that
individuals can rise and fall within the class structure -- though, of
course, it's easier to become rich if you're born in a rich family than a
poor one. Thus James W. Loewen reports that "ninety-five percent of the
executives and financiers in America around the turn of the century came
from upper-class or upper-middle-class backgrounds.  Fewer than 3 percent
started as poor immigrants or farm children. Throughout the nineteenth
century, just 2 percent of American industrialists came from working-class
origins." [in "Lies My Teacher Told Me" citing William Miller, "American 
Historians and the Business Elite," in _Men in Business_, pp. 326-28; 
cf. David Montgomery, _Beyond Equality_, p. 15] And this was at the 
height of USA "free market" capitalism. According to a survey done by
C. Wright Mills and reported in his book _The Power Elite_, about 65% of
the highest-earning CEOs in American corporations come from wealthy
families. Meritocracy, after all, does not imply a "classless" society, 
only that some mobility exists between classes. Yet we continually hear 
that class is an outmoded concept; that classes don't exist any more, just 
atomised individuals who all enjoy "equal opportunity," "equality before the 
law," and so forth. So what's going on?

The fact that the capitalist media are the biggest promoters of the
"end-of-class" idea should make us wonder exactly *why* they do it. Whose
interest is being served by denying the existence of classes? Clearly it
is those who run the class system, who gain the most from it, who want
everyone to think we are all "equal." Those who control the major media
don't want the idea of class to spread because they themselves are members
of the ruling class, with all the privileges that implies. Hence they use
the media as propaganda organs to mould public opinion and distract the
middle and working classes from the crucial issue, i.e., their own
subordinate status. This is why the mainstream news sources give us
nothing but superficial analyses, biased and selective reporting, outright
lies, and an endless barrage of yellow journalism, titillation, and
"entertainment," rather than talking about the class nature of capitalist
society (see section D.3 -- "How does wealth influence the mass media?")
 
The universities, think tanks, and private research foundations are also
important propaganda tools of the ruling class. This is why it is
virtually taboo in mainstream academic circles to suggest that anything
like a ruling class even exists in the United States. Students are
instead indoctrinated with the myth of a "pluralist" and "democratic"
society -- a Never-Never Land where all laws and public policies 
supposedly get determined only by the amount of "public support" they 
have -- certainly not by any small faction wielding power in disproportion 
to its size. 

To deny the existence of class is a powerful tool in the hands of the
powerful. As Alexander Berkman points out, "[o]ur social institutions 
are founded on certain ideas; so long as the latter are generally 
believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains 
strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion 
necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system 
is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which 
support the evil and oppressive present day conditions means the 
ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism." ["Author's Foreword," 
_What is Anarchism?_, p. xii] 

Unsurprisingly, to deny the existence of classes is an important means 
of bolstering capitalism, to undercut social criticism of inequality 
and oppression. It presents a picture of a system in which only 
individuals exist, ignoring the differences between one set of people
(the ruling class) and the others (the working class) in terms of 
social position, power and interests. This obviously helps those in
power maintain it by focusing analysis away from that power and its
sources (wealth, hierarchy, etc.).

It also helps maintain the class system by undermining collective
struggle. To admit class exists means to admit that working people
share common interests due to their common position in the social
hierarchy. And common interests can lead to common action to change
that position. Isolated consumers, however, are in no position to 
act for themselves. One individual standing alone is easily defeated, 
whereas a *union* of individuals supporting each other is not. 
Throughout the history of capitalism there have been attempts by 
the ruling class -- often successful -- to destroy working class 
organisations. Why? Because in union there is power -- power which 
can destroy the class system as well as the state and create a new 
world. 

That's why the very existence of class is denied by the elite. It's part
of their strategy for winning the battle of ideas and ensuring that people
remain as atomised individuals. By "manufacturing consent" (to use Walter
Lipman's expression for the function of the media), force need not be
used. By limiting the public's sources of information to propaganda
organs controlled by state and corporate elites, all debate can be
confined within a narrow conceptual framework of capitalist terminology
and assumptions, and anything premised on a different conceptual framework
can be marginalised. Thus the average person is brought to accept
current society as "fair" and "just," or at least as "the best available,"
because no alternatives are ever allowed to be discussed. 

B.7.4 What do anarchists mean by "class consciousness"?

Given that the existence of classes is often ignored or considered 
unimportant ("boss and worker have common interests") in mainstream
culture, its important to continually point out the facts of the 
situation: that a wealthy elite run the world and the vast majority 
are subjected to hierarchy and work to enrich this elite. To be 
class conscious means that we are aware of the objective facts and 
act appropriately to change them. 

This is why anarchists stress the need for "class consciousness," 
for recognising that classes exist and that their interests are in
*conflict.* The reason why this is the case is obvious enough. As
Alexander Berkman argues, "the interests of capital and labour are
not the same. No greater lie was ever invented than the so-called
'identity of interests' [between capital and labour] . . . labour
produces all the wealth of the world . . . [and] capital is owned
by the masters is stolen property, stolen products of labour.
Capitalist industry is the process of continuing to appropriate
the products of labour for the benefit of the master class . . .
It is clear that your interests as a worker are *different* from
the interests of your capitalistic masters. More than different:
they are entirely opposite; in fact, contrary, antagonistic to
each other. The better wages the boss pays you, the less profit
he makes out of you. It does not require great philosophy to
understand that." [_What is Anarchism?_, pp. 75-6]

That classes are in conflict can be seen from the post-war period
in most developed countries. Taking the example of the USA, the 
immediate post-war period (the 1950s to the 1970s) were marked by 
social conflict, strikes and so forth. From the 1980s onwards, there
was a period of relative social peace because the bosses managed to
inflict a series of defeats on the working class. Workers became less
militant, the trade unions went into a period of decline and the
success of capitalism proclaimed. If the interests of both classes
were the same we would expect that all sections of society would
have benefited more in the 1980s onwards than between the 1950s to
1970s. This is *not* the case. While income grew steadily across 
the board between 1950 and 1980s, since then wealth has flooded up 
to the top while those at the bottom found it harder to make ends meet.

A similar process occurred in the 1920s when Alexander Berkman stated 
the obvious:

"The masters have found a very effective way to paralyse the strength
of organised labour. They have persuaded the workers that they have 
the same interests as the employers . . . that what is good for the 
employer is good for his employees . . . [that] the workers will not
think of fighting their masters for better conditions, but they will
be patient and wait till the employer can 'share his prosperity' with
them. They will also consider the interests of 'their' country and
they will not 'disturb industry' and the 'orderly life of the community'
by strikes and stoppage of work. If you listen to your exploiters and
their mouthpieces you will be 'good' and consider only the interests
of your masters, of your city and country -- but no one cares about
*your* interests and those of your family, the interests of your union
and of your fellow workers of the labouring class. 'Don't be selfish,'
they admonish you, while the boss is getting rich by your being good
and unselfish. And they laugh in their sleeves and thank the Lord that
you are such an idiot." [Op. Cit., pp. 74-5]

So, in a nutshell, class consciousness is to look after your own 
interest as a member of the working class. To be aware that there is
inequality in society and that you cannot expect the wealthy and
powerful to be concerned about anyone's interest except their own.
That only by struggle can you gain respect and an increased slice 
of the wealth you produce but do not own. And that there is "an 
irreconcilable antagonism" between the ruling class and working 
class "which results inevitably from their respective stations 
in life." The riches of the former are "based on the exploitation 
and subjugation of the latter's labour" which means "war between" 
the two "is unavoidable." For the working class desires "only 
equality" while the ruling elite "exist[s] only through 
inequality." For the latter, "as a separate class, equality
is death" while for the former "the least inequality is slavery."
[Bakunin, _The Basic Bakunin_, p. 97 and pp. 91-2] 

Although class analysis may at first appear to be a novel idea, 
the conflicting interests of the classes is *well* recognised on 
the other side of the class divide. For example, James Madison 
in the _Federalist Paper_ #10 states that "those who hold and 
those who are without have ever formed distinct interests in 
society." For anarchists, class consciousness means to recognise 
what the bosses already know: the importance of solidarity 
with others in the same class position as oneself and of acting 
together as equals to attain common goals. The difference is that
the ruling class wants to keep the class system going while
anarchists seek to end it once and for all.

It could be argued that anarchists actually want an "anti-class"
consciousness to develop -- that is, for people to recognise that 
classes exist, to understand *why* they exist, and act to abolish 
the root causes for their continued existence ("class consciousness," 
argues Vernon Richards, "but not in the sense of wanting to perpetuate 
classes, but the consciousness of their existence, an understanding of 
why they exist, and a determination, informed by knowledge and militancy, 
to abolish them." [_The Impossibilities of Social Democracy_, p. 133]). 
In short, anarchists want to eliminate classes, not universalise the 
class of "wage worker" (which would presuppose the continued existence 
of capitalism). 

More importantly, class consciousness does not involve "worker 
worship." To the contrary, as Murray Bookchin points out, "[t]he 
worker begins to become a revolutionary when he undoes his [or 
her] 'workerness', when he [or she] comes to detest his class 
status here and now, when he begins to shed . . . his work 
ethic, his character-structure derived from industrial discipline, 
his respect for hierarchy, his obedience to leaders, his consumerism, 
his vestiges of puritanism." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 119] For, 
in the end, anarchists "cannot build until the working class gets 
rid of its illusions, its acceptance of bosses and faith in leaders." 
[Marie-Louise Berneri, _Neither East Nor West_, p. 19]

It may be objected that there are only individuals and anarchists are 
trying to throw a lot of people in a box and put a label like "working 
class" on them. In reply, anarchists agree, yes, there are "only" 
individuals but some of them are bosses, most of them are working 
class. This is an objective division within society which the ruling 
class does its best to hide but which comes out during social struggle. 
And such struggle is part of the process by which more and more 
oppressed people subjectivity recognise the objective facts. And 
by more and more people recognising the facts of capitalist reality, 
more and more people will want to change them.

Currently there are working class people who want an anarchist society and 
there are others who just want to climb up the hierarchy to get to a position 
where they can impose their will to others. But that does not change the
fact that their current position is that they are subjected to the authority 
of hierarchy and so can come into conflict with it. And by so doing, they
must practise self-activity and this struggle can change their minds, what
they think, and so they become radicalised. This, the radicalising effects
of self-activity and social struggle, is a key factor in why anarchists
are involved in it. It is an important means of creating more anarchists
and getting more and more people aware of anarchism as a viable alternative
to capitalism. 

Ultimately, it does not matter what class you are, it's what you *believe 
in* that matters. And what you *do.* Hence we see anarchists like Bakunin
and Kropotkin, former members of the Russian ruling class, or like Malatesta,
born into an Italian middle class family, rejecting their backgrounds and
its privileges and becoming supporters of working class self-liberation. 
But anarchists base their activity primarily on the working class (including 
peasants, self-employed artisans and so on) because the working class is 
subject to hierarchy and so have a real need to resist to exist. This process 
of resisting the powers that be can and does have a radicalising effect on 
those involved and so what they believe in and what they do *changes.*
Being subject to hierarchy, oppression and exploitation means that it
is in the working class people's "own interest to abolish them. It has
been truly said that 'the emancipation of the workers must be accomplished
by the workers themselves,' for no social class will do it for them . . .
It is . . . *the interest* of the proletariat to emancipate itself from
bondage . . . It is only be growing to a true realisation of their 
present position, by visualising their possibilities and powers, by 
learning unity and co-operation, and practising them, that the masses
can attain freedom." [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., pp. 187-8]

We recognise, therefore, that only those at the bottom of society have a
*self*-interest in freeing themselves from the burden of those at the top,
and so we see the importance of class consciousness in the struggle of
oppressed people for self-liberation. Thus, "[f]ar from believing in the 
messianic role of the working class, the anarchists' aim is to *abolish* 
the working class in so far as this term refers to the underprivileged 
majority in all existing societies. . . What we do say is that no 
revolution can succeed without the active participation of the working, 
producing, section of the population. . . The power of the State, the 
values of authoritarian society can only be challenged and destroyed 
by a greater power and new values." [Vernon Richards, _The Raven_, 
no. 14, pp. 183-4] Anarchists also argue that one of the effects of 
direct action to resist oppression and exploitation of working class 
people would be the *creation* of such a power and new values, values 
based on respect for individual freedom and solidarity (see sections 
J.2 and J.4 on direct action and its liberating potential). 

As such, class consciousness also means recognising that working class 
people not only has an interest in ending our oppression but that we 
also have the power to do so. "This power, the people's power," notes
Berkman, "is *actual*: it cannot be taken away, as the power of the
ruler, of the politician, or of the capitalist can be. It cannot be
taken away because it does not consist of possessions but in ability.
It is the ability to create, to produce; the power that feeds and
clothes the world, that gives us life, health and comfort, joy and
pleasure." The power of government and capital "disappear when the
people refuse to acknowledge them as masters, refuse to let them
lord it over them." This is "the all-important *economic power*"
of the working class. [Op. Cit., p. 87, p. 86 and p. 88] 

This potential power of the oppressed, anarchist argue, shows that 
not only are classes wasteful and harmful, but that they can be 
ended once those at the bottom seek to do so and reorganise society 
appropriately. This means that we have the power to transform the 
economic system into a non-exploitative and classless one as 
"only a productive class may be libertarian in nature, because 
it does not need to exploit." [Albert Meltzer, _Anarchism: 
Arguments For and Against_, p. 23]

Finally, it is important to stress that anarchists think that 
class consciousness *must* also mean to be aware of *all* forms 
of hierarchical power, not just economic oppression. As such, class 
consciousness and class conflict is not simply about inequalities of 
wealth or income but rather questioning all forms of domination, 
oppression and exploitation.

For anarchists, "[t]he class struggle does not centre around material 
exploitation alone but also around spiritual exploitation, . . . [as 
well as] psychological and environmental oppression." [Bookchin, 
Op. Cit., p. 151] This means that we do not consider economic oppression 
to be the only important thing, ignoring struggles and forms of oppression 
outside the workplace. To the contrary, workers are human beings, not 
the economically driven robots of capitalist and Leninist mythology. 
They are concerned about everything that affects them -- their parents, 
their children, their friends, their neighbours, their planet and, very 
often, total strangers.

