482 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
482 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
non serviam #9
|
|
**************
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents: Editor's Word
|
|
Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative (serial: 9)
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editor's Word
|
|
_____________
|
|
|
|
The saga continues ... The chapter Ken Knudson's article today,
|
|
"Capitalism: Freedom Perverted" is probably the most challenging
|
|
chapter to the readers of Non Serviam, and I have no doubt that many
|
|
will wish to comment. Such comments do, unless they are themselves
|
|
articles, belong on the list, nonserv. As Ken Knudson is presently
|
|
on vacation, it might take some time beforehe replies.
|
|
|
|
Happy reading, and I look forward to a good discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Svein Olav
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Ken Knudson:
|
|
|
|
A Critique of Communism
|
|
and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative
|
|
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALISM: FREEDOM PERVERTED
|
|
|
|
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a
|
|
nation and I care not who makes its laws."
|
|
- Meyer A. Rothchild
|
|
|
|
Roosevelt, in blaming the depression of the 'thirties
|
|
on "heedless self-interest," played a cheap political trick
|
|
for which the world has been suffering ever since. The great
|
|
crash of 1929, far from being created by "free enterprise,"
|
|
was created by government interference in the free market.
|
|
The Federal Reserve Board had been artificially controlling
|
|
interest rates since 1913. The tax structure of the country
|
|
was set up in such a way as to encourage ridiculously risky
|
|
speculation in the stock market. "Protective tariffs"
|
|
destroyed anything that vaguely resembled a free market.
|
|
Immigration barriers prevented the free flow of the labour
|
|
market. Anti-trust laws threatened prosecution for charging
|
|
less than the competition ("intent to monopolise") and for
|
|
charging the same as the competition ("price fixing"), but
|
|
graciously permitted charging more than the competition
|
|
(commonly called "going out of business.") With all these
|
|
legislative restraints and controls, Roosevelt still had the
|
|
gall to blame the depression on the "free" market economy.
|
|
But what was his answer to the "ruthlessness" of freedom?
|
|
This is what he had to say on taking office in 1933:
|
|
|
|
"If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and
|
|
loyal army willing to sacrifice to the good of a common
|
|
discipline, because without such discipline no progress is
|
|
made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready
|
|
and willing to submit our lives and property to such
|
|
discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims
|
|
at a larger good." [82]
|
|
|
|
We've been on that Keynesian road ever since. The
|
|
"larger good" has become larger and larger until today the
|
|
only cure the politicians come up with for the economy's
|
|
ills is more of the same poison which made it sick in the
|
|
first place. The rationale for such a policy was expressed
|
|
by G. D. H. Cole in 1933:
|
|
|
|
"If once a departure is made from the classical method of
|
|
letting all the factors [of the economy] alone - and we have
|
|
seen enough of that method [have we?] to be thoroughly
|
|
dissatisfied with it - it becomes necessary to control ALL
|
|
the factors...for interference with one, while the others
|
|
are left unregulated, is certain to result in a fatal lack
|
|
of balance in the working of the economic system.." [83] (My
|
|
emphasis)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 40 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many people, on hearing the individualist critique of
|
|
governmental control of the economy, jump to the erroneous
|
|
conclusion that we believe in capitalism. I'm sorry to say
|
|
that some anarchists - who should know better - share this
|
|
common fallacy. In a letter to "Freedom" a few months ago I
|
|
tried to clear up this myth. Replying to an article by one
|
|
of its editors, I had this to say:
|
|
|
|
"First let me look at the term `anarcho-capitalist.' This,
|
|
it seems to me, is just an attempt to slander the
|
|
individualist-anarchists by using a supercharged word like
|
|
`capitalist' in much the same way as the word `anarchy' is
|
|
popularly used to mean chaos and disorder. No one to my
|
|
knowledge accepts the anarcho-capitalist label*, just as no
|
|
one up to the time of Proudhon's memoir on property in 1840
|
|
accepted the anarchist label. But, unlike Proudhon who could
|
|
call himself an anarchist by stripping the word of its
|
|
derogatory connotation and looking at its real MEANING, no
|
|
one can logically call himself an anarcho-capitalist for the
|
|
simple reason that it's a contradiction in terms: anarchists
|
|
seek the abolition of the state while capitalism is
|
|
inherently dependent upon the state. Without the state,
|
|
capitalism would inevitably fall, for capitalism rests on
|
|
the pillars of government privilege. Because of government a
|
|
privileged minority can monopolise land, limit credit,
|
|
restrict exchange, give idle capital the power to increase,
|
|
and, through interest, rent, profit, and taxes, rob
|
|
industrious labour of its products." [84]
|
|
|
|
Now most anarchists when they attack capitalism strike
|
|
it where it is strongest: in its advocacy of freedom. And
|
|
how paradoxical that is. Here we have the anarchists,
|
|
champions of freedom PAR EXCELLENCE, complaining about
|
|
freedom! How ridiculous, it seems to me, to find anarchists
|
|
attacking Mr. Heath for withdrawing government subsidies
|
|
from museums and children's milk programmes. When anarchists
|
|
start screaming for free museums, free milk, free subways,
|
|
free medical care, free education, etc., etc., they only
|
|
show their ignorance of what freedom really is. All these
|
|
"free" goodies which governments so graciously shower upon
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* I have since been informed that "the term `anarcho-
|
|
capitalist' is now in use in the USA - particularly amongst
|
|
those who contribute to the Los Angeles publication
|
|
`Libertarian Connection'." It seems to me that people
|
|
accepting such a label must do so primarily for its shock
|
|
value. Very few people like capitalists these days, and
|
|
those who do certainly don't like anarchists. What better
|
|
term could you find to offend everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 41 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
their subjects ultimately come from the recipients
|
|
themselves - in the form of taxes. Governments are very
|
|
clever at concealing just how large this sum actually is.
|
|
They speak of a billion pounds here and a few hundred
|
|
million dollars there. But what does a figure like
|
|
$229,232,000,000.00 (Nixon's proposed budget) actually mean
|
|
to the taxpayer? Virtually nothing. It's just a long string
|
|
of numbers preceded by a dollar sign. People have no
|
|
conception of numbers that size. But let me try to shed some
|
|
light on this figure by breaking it down into a number the
|
|
individual taxpayer can't help but understand: the average
|
|
annual cost per family. This is a number governments NEVER
|
|
talk about - for if they did, there would be a revolt which
|
|
would make the storming of the Bastille look like a Sunday
|
|
school picnic. Here's how to calculate it: you take the
|
|
government's annual budget and divide it by the population
|
|
of the country; then you multiply the result by the average
|
|
size of family (4.5 seems a reasonable number). Doing this
|
|
for the American case cited, we come to $4,800 (i.e. 2000
|
|
pounds per family per year!*). And that is just the FEDERAL
|
|
tax bite. State and local taxes (which primarily pay for
|
|
America's "free" education and "free" public highways) have
|
|
yet to be considered. I leave it as an exercise to the
|
|
British reader to see why their "welfare state" also prefers
|
|
to mask budgetary figures by using astronomical numbers.
|
|
|
|
One thing should be clear from this example: nothing is
|
|
for nothing. But the Santa Claus myth dies hard, even - or
|
|
should I say especially? - among anarchists. The only
|
|
encouraging sign to the contrary I have found in the
|
|
anarchist press of late was when Ian Sutherland complained
|
|
in the columns of "Freedom": "I object, strongly, to having
|
|
a large section of my `product', my contribution to society,
|
|
forcibly removed from me by a paternalistic state to
|
|
dispense to a fool with 10 kids." [85] Unfortunately, I
|
|
suspect that Mr Sutherland would only replace the
|
|
"paternalistic state" by the "paternalistic commune" - and
|
|
in so doing would still end up supporting those 10 kids. My
|
|
suspicions were nourished by what he said in the very next
|
|
paragraph about "laissez faire" anarchists: "perhaps they
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* I am usually quite conservative in my use of
|
|
exclamation marks. When I used this example in a recent
|
|
letter to "Freedom", the editors saw fit to insert one where
|
|
I had not. In keeping with their precedent, I will do
|
|
likewise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 42 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
should join the Powellites." Perhaps Mr Sutherland should
|
|
learn what laissez faire means.
|
|
|
|
Laissez faire is a term coined by the French
|
|
physiocrats during the eighteenth century. John Stuart Mill
|
|
brought it into popular English usage with the publication
|
|
in 1848 of his "Principles of Political Economy," where he
|
|
examined the arguments for and against government
|
|
intervention in the economy. The "con" side of the argument
|
|
he called laissez faire. "The principle of `laissez faire'
|
|
in economics calls for perfect freedom in production;
|
|
distribution of the returns (or profit) to the factors of
|
|
production according to the productivity of each; and
|
|
finally, markets in which prices are determined by the free
|
|
interplay of forces that satisfy buyers and sellers." [86] I
|
|
find it difficult to see how any advocate of freedom could
|
|
possibly object to a doctrine like this one. Unfortunately,
|
|
what happened in the 19th century was that a handful of
|
|
capitalists, who were anything but believers if freedom,
|
|
picked up this nice sounding catch phrase and decided to
|
|
"improve" upon it. These "improvements" left them with the
|
|
freedom to exploit labour but took away labour's freedom to
|
|
exploit capital. These capitalists, in perverting the
|
|
original meaning of laissez faire, struck a blow against
|
|
freedom from which it still suffers to this day. The
|
|
capitalist who advocates laissez faire is a hypocrite. If he
|
|
really believed in freedom, he could not possibly condone
|
|
the greatest invader of freedom known to man: government.
|
|
The capitalist necessarily relies on government to protect
|
|
his privileged RIGHTS. Let us look at the foremost advocate
|
|
of capitalism today, Ayn Rand. Her book "Capitalism: The
|
|
Unknown Ideal" has two appendices. The first is on "Man's
|
|
Rights" where she say, "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE THE MEANS OF
|
|
SUBORDINATING SOCIETY TO MORAL LAW." [87] (Her emphasis)
|
|
Once again we are back to "rights" and "morals" which
|
|
Stirner so strongly warned us about. And where does this
|
|
lead us? Directly to Appendix Two, "The Nature of
|
|
Government," where she says that government is "necessary"
|
|
because "men need an institution charged with the task of
|
|
protecting [you guessed it] their rights." [88] Let's see
|
|
what some of these precious rights are:
|
|
|
|
I. Chapter 11 of Miss Rand's book is devoted to a
|
|
defence of patent and copyright laws. In it she calls upon
|
|
government to "certify the origination of an idea and
|
|
protect its owner's exclusive right to use and disposal."
|
|
[89] Realising the absurdity of PERPETUAL property in ideas
|
|
("consider what would happen if, in producing an automobile,
|
|
we had to pay royalties to the descendants of all the
|
|
inventors involved, starting with the inventor of the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 43 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and on up." [90]), she goes into considerable mental
|
|
acrobatics to justify intellectual property for a LIMITED
|
|
time. But by so doing, she only succeeds in arousing our
|
|
suspicion of her motives, for it seems strange that a mere
|
|
lapse of time should negate something so precious as a man's
|
|
"right" to his property. Admitting that "a patented
|
|
invention often tends to hamper or restrict further research
|
|
and development in a given area of science [91], our
|
|
champion of the unhampered economy nevertheless manages to
|
|
justify governmental "protection" to secure the inventor's
|
|
"rights." As for copyrights, our millionaire author thinks
|
|
"the most rational" length of time for this governmental
|
|
protection would be "for the lifetime of the author and
|
|
fifty years thereafter." [92] How does she justify all this?
|
|
The way she justifies most of her inane arguments - by
|
|
quoting herself: "Why should Rearden be the only one
|
|
permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?" [93] Why indeed?
|
|
|
|
II. Capitalists are fond of proclaiming the "rights" of
|
|
private property. One of their favourite property rights is
|
|
the right to own land without actually occupying it. The
|
|
only way this can possibly be done is, once again, by
|
|
government protection of legal pieces of paper called
|
|
"titles" and "deeds." Without these scraps of paper, vast
|
|
stretches of vacant land would be open to those who could
|
|
use them and exorbitant rent could no longer be extracted
|
|
from the non-owning user as tribute to the non-using owner.
|
|
|
|
There is much talk these days of a "population
|
|
explosion." It is claimed that land is becoming more and
|
|
more scarce and that by the year such and such there will be
|
|
38.2 people per square inch of land. But just how scarce is
|
|
land? If all the world's land were divided up equally, every
|
|
individual would have more than ten acres apiece. Even
|
|
"crowded" islands like Britain and Japan have more than an
|
|
acre per person on average. [94] When you consider how few
|
|
people actually own any of this land, these figures seem
|
|
incredible. It's no wonder then that the absentee landlord
|
|
is a strong believer in property rights. Without them his
|
|
vulnerable land might actually be used to the advantage of
|
|
the user.
|
|
|
|
III. Capitalists have always been great believers in
|
|
the sovereign "rights" of nations. Ayn Rand, for example,
|
|
thinks it perfectly consistent with her brand of freedom
|
|
that the United States government should tax the people
|
|
within its borders to support an army which costs tens of
|
|
billions of dollars each year. It is true that Miss Rand
|
|
opposes the war in Vietnam. But why? Because "IT DOES NOT
|
|
SERVE ANY NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES." [95] (Her
|
|
emphasis) So we see that our advocate of "limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 44 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
government" wouldn't go so far as to limit its strongest
|
|
arm: the military. Eighty billion dollars a year for
|
|
national "defence" doesn't seem to phase her in the least -
|
|
in fact, she would like to add on a few billion more to make
|
|
"an army career comparable to the standards of the civilian
|
|
labour market." [96]
|
|
|
|
As every anarchist knows, a frontier is nothing more
|
|
than an imaginary line drawn by a group of men with vested
|
|
interests on their side of the line. That "nations" should
|
|
exist is an absurdity. That a highwayman (in the uniform of
|
|
a customs official) should rob people as they cross these
|
|
imaginary lines and turn back others who haven't the proper
|
|
pieces of paper is an obscenity too indecent to relate here
|
|
- there may be children reading. But if there are children
|
|
reading, perhaps they can enlighten their elders about the
|
|
obvious - as they did when the emperor went out in his "new"
|
|
clothes. The nationalists of the world are strutting about
|
|
without a stitch of reason on. Can only a child see this?
|
|
|
|
IV. The cruelest "right" - and the one least understood
|
|
today - is the exclusive right of governments to issue
|
|
money. There was a time about a hundred years ago when
|
|
nearly everyone was aware of the currency question. For
|
|
several decades in the United States it was THE political
|
|
issue. Whole political parties formed around it (e.g. the
|
|
Greenback and Populist parties). William Jennings Bryan, the
|
|
three-time Democratic candidate for the presidency, rose to
|
|
fame with his "easy money" speeches; next to Lincoln's
|
|
Gettysburg address, his "cross of gold" speech is probably
|
|
the best-known public oration of 19th century America. Yet
|
|
today virtually everyone accepts the currency question as
|
|
settled. Governments issue the money people use and they
|
|
never give it a second thought - it's just there, like the
|
|
sun and the moon.
|
|
|
|
The capitalist is vitally interested in the
|
|
government's exclusive right to issue money. The capitalist
|
|
is, by definition, the holder of capital; and the
|
|
government, by making only a certain type of capital (namely
|
|
gold) the legal basis of all money, gives to the capitalist
|
|
a monopoly power to compel all holders of property other
|
|
than the kind thus privileged, as well as all non-
|
|
proprietors, to pay tribute to the capitalist for the use of
|
|
a circulating medium and instrument of credit which is
|
|
absolutely necessary to carry out commerce and reap the
|
|
benefits of the division of labour. A crude example of how
|
|
this system works is given by the Angolan "native tax." The
|
|
Portuguese whites in Angola found it difficult to get black
|
|
labour for their coffee plantations, so they struck upon a
|
|
rather ingenious scheme: tax the natives and the natives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 45 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
having to pay their tax in MONEY, would be forced to sell
|
|
their labour to the only people who could give it to them -
|
|
the whiteman. [97]
|
|
|
|
The same thing goes on today on a more sophisticated
|
|
level in our more "civilised" societies. The worker needs
|
|
money to carry out the business of everyday life. He needs
|
|
food, he needs housing, he needs clothing. To get these
|
|
things he needs MONEY. And to get money he has to sell the
|
|
only thing he's got: his labour. Since he MUST sell his
|
|
labour, he is put into a very bad bargaining position with
|
|
the buyers of labour: the capitalists. This is how the
|
|
capitalist grows rich. He buys labour in a cheap market and
|
|
sells his products back to the worker in a dear one. This is
|
|
what Marx called the "surplus value theory" of labour. His
|
|
analysis (at least here) was right; his solution to the
|
|
problem was wrong.
|
|
|
|
The way Marx saw out of this trap was to abolish money.
|
|
The worker would then get the equivalent of his labour by
|
|
pooling his products with other workers and taking out what
|
|
he needed. I've already exposed the weak points of this
|
|
theory. What is the individualist alternative?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82. Quoted from Charles A. Reich's article in "The New
|
|
Yorker" magazine, "The Greening of American," September 26,
|
|
1970.
|
|
|
|
83. G. D. H. Cole, "What Everybody Wants To Know About
|
|
Money" (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1933), pp. 526-7.
|
|
|
|
84. Ken Knudson, "Letters", "Freedom," November 14, 1970.
|
|
|
|
85. Ian S. Sutherland, "Doomsday & After," "Freedom,"
|
|
February 27, 1971.
|
|
|
|
86. "Laissez Faire," "Encyclopaedia Britannica," 1965, vol.
|
|
XIII, p. 606.
|
|
|
|
87. Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (New York:
|
|
Signet Books, 1967), p 320.
|
|
|
|
88. Ibid., p. 331.
|
|
|
|
89. Ibid., p. 131.
|
|
|
|
90. Ibid., pp. 131-2.
|
|
|
|
91. Ibid., pp. 132-3.
|
|
|
|
92. Ibid., p, 132.
|
|
|
|
93. Ibid., p. 134.
|
|
|
|
94. "Geographical Summaries: Area and Population,"
|
|
Encyclopaedia Britannica Atlas," 1965, p. 199.
|
|
|
|
95. Rand, op. cit., p. 224.
|
|
|
|
96. Ibid., p. 229.
|
|
|
|
97. Douglas Marchant, "Angola," "Anarchy 112," June, 1970,
|
|
p. 184.
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
* POSITIVISM, n: A philosophy that denies our knowledge of the Real *
|
|
* and affirms our ignorance of the Apparent. Its *
|
|
* longest exponent is Comte, its broadest Mill and *
|
|
* its thickest Spencer. *
|
|
* *
|
|
* "The Devil's Dictionary", Ambrose Bierce *
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|