Retour sur le questionnaire portant sur la propriété

Ce billet porte à nouveau sur mon questionnaire sur la propriété. À la question Q4, j’ai répondu ceci:

Q4: Votre opinion sur le travail.

A-0 pt-Personne ne doit travailler.
B-2.5 pts-Rien contre le travail, mais celui-ci ne doit pas être lié à la survie.
C-4 pts-Le travail est essentiel à la survie, mais il n’est pas une vertu absolue.
D-5 pts-Le travail est jouissif et est essentiel à la survie.

J’ai expliqué dans ce billet pourquoi j’ai répondu ainsi et je ne changerai pas d’avis: il s’agit de la seule réponse anarchiste valide. Je passe à autre chose.

Aux questions Q1 et Q3, j’ai répondu ainsi:

Q1: Quel mode de propriété devrait s’appliquer au capital de production (machines, usines et autres biens servant à la production)?

A-0 point-Usus seulement, par la coercition étatique.
B-1 pt-Usus seulement, par des ententes collectives volontaires.
C-2 pts-Possession, par la coercition étatique.
D-3 pts-Possession, volontairement.
E-4 pts-Propriété, volontairement.
F-5 pts-Propriété, en légitimant les propriétés acquises par le passé par la coercition étatique (expropriation étatique) ou par une autre forme de violence, mais sans cautionner la violence dans le présent ni dans le futur.

Q3: Quel mode de propriété devrait s’appliquer aux terres et aux habitations?

A-0 pt-Usus seulement, par la coercition étatique.
B-1 pt-Usus seulement, par des ententes collectives volontaires.
C-2 pts-Possession, par la coercition étatique.
D-3 pts-Possession, volontairement.
E-4 pts-Propriété, volontairement.
F-5 pts-Propriété, en légitimant les propriétés acquises par le passé par la coercition étatique ou par une autre forme de violence, mais sans cautionner la violence (expropriation étatique) dans le présent ni dans le futur.

Les réponses A, C et F sont invalides pour les anarchistes. Généralement, les libertariens répondent F à cette question, comme les drouatistes étatistes! Voilà un des pires exemples de libertarianisme vulgaire que je connaisse. En aucun cas, un anarchiste ne peut cautionner une propriété acquise par la violence passée mais cette violence ne semble causer aucun problème aux libertariens!

Beaucoup d’anarchistes libertaires sont en faveur de B. J’aimerais qu’ils m’expliquent comment cela est possible sans coercition étatique (à l’exception de ceux qui préconisent un mode de vie nomade: dans ce cas précis, je n’y vois aucune d’incompatibilité entre la non-possession et l’anarchie).

D’autres anarchistes, dits anarcho-capitalistes (je hais ce terme), sont généralement en faveur de E. À mon avis, la propriété est incompatible avec l’anarchie dans le cas du capital de production, des terres et des habitations. J’aimerais que ces anarcho-capitalistes réfléchissent à cette citation d’Anne Archet:

La propriété est donc le fil barbelé, l’étiquette de prix, le chien de garde, la caméra de sécurité, l’agent de police. Le message que tout ceci véhicule est limpide : on ne peut jouir de rien sans permission et cette permission ne peut être donnée que par l’État contre paiement en espèces sonnantes et trébuchantes. Dans ses conditions, comment se surprendre que le monde de la propriété, régi par le marché et l’État, est un monde appauvri où le manque et non la satisfaction domine l’existence. La poursuite de la liberté individuelle, bloquée à chaque détour par une clôture, y est remplacée par une compétition stérile et pour accumuler toujours plus d’objets parce que dans ce monde, la valeur de l’individu se mesure à la quantité de choses qu’il peut détenir.

En terminant, j’aimerais aussi que ces anarcho-capitalistes réfléchissent en lisant ce texte de Murray Rothbard (je suggère aussi ce texte de Karl Hess), un penseur fort apprécié des libertariens et des anarcho-capitalistes. Pourtant, Murray Rothbard y fait l’apologie de la saisie des propriétés corporatistes et étatiques par des groupes de travailleurs! Bonne lecture!

CONFISCATION AND THE HOMESTEAD PRINCIPLE

Karl Hess’s brilliant and challenging article in this issue raises a problem of specifics that ranges further than the libertarian movement. For example, there must be hundreds of thousands of “professional” anti-Communists in this country. Yet not one of these gentry, in the course of their fulminations, has come up with a specific plan for de-Communization. Suppose, for example, that Messers. Brezhnev and Co. become converted to the principles of a free society; they than ask our anti-Communists, all right, how do we go about de-socializing? What could our anti-Communists offer them?

This question has been essentially answered by the exciting developments of Tito’s Yugoslavia. Beginning in 1952, Yugoslavia has been de-socializing at a remarkable rate. The principle the Yugoslavs have used is the libertarian “homesteading” one: the state-owned factories to the workers that work in them! The nationalized plants in the “public” sector have all been transferred in virtual ownership to the specific workers who work in the particular plants, thus making them producers’ coops, and moving rapidly in the direction of individual shares of virtual ownership to the individual worker. What other practicable route toward destatization could there be? The principle in the Communist countries should be: land to the peasants and the factories to the workers, thereby getting the property out of the hands of the State and into private, homesteading hands.

The homesteading principle means that the way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor. This is clear in the case of the pioneer and virgin land. But what of the case of stolen property?

Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is preforming a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.

Let us now apply our libertarian theory of property to the case of property in the hands of, or derived from, the State apparatus. The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called “taxation” and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around. Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty. In the case of the State, furthermore, the victim is not readily identifiable as B, the horse-owner. All taxpayers, all draftees, all victims of the State have been mulcted. How to go about returning all this property to the taxpayers? What proportions should be used in this terrific tangle of robbery and injustice that we have all suffered at the hands of the State? Often, the most practical method of de-statizing is simply to grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State. Of this group, the most morally deserving are the ones who are already using the property but who have no moral complicity in the State’s act of aggression. These people then become the homesteaders” of the stolen property and hence the rightful owners.

Take, for example, the State universities. This is property built on funds stolen from the taxpayers. Since the State has not found or put into effect a way of returning ownership of this property to the taxpaying public, the proper owners of this university are the “homesteaders”, those who have already been using and therefore “mixing their labor” with the facilities. The prime consideration is to deprive the thief, in this case the State, as quickly as possible of the ownership and control of its ill-gotten gains, to return the property to the innocent, private sector. This means student and/or faculty ownership of the universities.

As between the two groups, the students have a prior claim, for the students have been paying at least some amount to support the university whereas the faculty suffer from the moral taint of living off State funds and thereby becoming to some extent a part of the State apparatus.

The same principle applies to nominally “private” property which really comes from the State as a result of zealous lobbying on behalf of the recipient. Columbia University, for example, which receives nearly two-thirds of its income from government, is only a “private” college in the most ironic sense. It deserves a similar fate of virtuous home-steading confiscation.

But if Columbia University, what of General Dynamics? What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to “private” property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their “private” property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horsethief and the murdered must be “respected”.

But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the “private property” of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute? And, further more, even if the government should decide to nationalize General Dynamics–without compensation, of course– per se and not as a prelude to redistribution to the taxpayers, this is not immoral or something to be combatted. For it would only mean that one gang of thieves–the government–would be confiscating property from another previously cooperating gang, the corporation that has lived off the government. I do not often agree with John Kenneth Galbraith, but his recent suggestion to nationalize businesses which get more than 75% of their revenue from government, or from the military, has considerable merit. Certainly it does not mean aggression against private property, and, furthermore, we could expect a considerable diminution of zeal from the military-industrial complex if much of the profits were taken out of war and plunder. And besides, it would make the American military machine less efficient, being governmental, and that is surely all to the good. But why stop at 75%? Fifty per cent seems to be a reasonable cutoff point on whether an organization is largely public or largely private.

And there is another consideration. Dow Chemical, for example, has been heavily criticized for making napalm for the U.S. military machine. The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.

This brings us to Karl’s point about slaves. One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land–their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation. The fact that the land remained in the hands of the lords paved the way inexorably for the Bolshevik Revolution, since the revolution that had freed the serfs remained unfinished.

The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to “reparations”, reparationsfor the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist’s call for “40 acres and a mule” to the former slaves. In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed.

Alan Milchman, in the days when he was a brilliant young libertarian activist, first pointed out that libertarians had misled themselves by making their main dichotomy “government” vs. “private” with the former bad and the latter good. Government, he pointed out, is after all not a mystical entity but a group of individuals, “private” individuals if you will, acting in the manner of an organized criminal gang. But this means that there may also be “private” criminals as well as people directly affiliated with the government. What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not “private” property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus.

Advertisements

2 responses

  1. Ma réponse est la même: D’ (D+ententes collectives) et D.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: