     F.3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on equality?

   Murray Rothbard argued that "the 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed
   to inequality." [For a New Liberty, p. 47] In contrast, genuine
   libertarians oppose inequality because it has harmful effects on
   individual liberty. Part of the reason "anarcho"-capitalism places
   little or no value on "equality" derives from their definition of that
   term. "A and B are 'equal,'" Rothbard argued, "if they are identical to
   each other with respect to a given attribute . . . There is one and
   only one way, then, in which any two people can really be 'equal' in
   the fullest sense: they must be identical in all their attributes." He
   then pointed out the obvious fact that "men are not uniform . . . the
   species, mankind, is uniquely characterised by a high degree of
   variety, diversity, differentiation: in short, inequality."
   [Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays, p. 4 and
   p.5]

   In others words, every individual is unique -- something no egalitarian
   has ever denied. On the basis of this amazing insight, he concludes
   that equality is impossible (except "equality of rights") and that the
   attempt to achieve "equality" is a "revolt against nature." The utility
   of Rothbard's sophistry to the rich and powerful should be obvious as
   it moves analysis away from the social system we live in and onto
   biological differences. This means that because we are all unique, the
   outcome of our actions will not be identical and so social inequality
   flows from natural differences and not due to the economic system we
   live under. Inequality of endowment, in this perspective, implies
   inequality of outcome and so social inequality. As individual
   differences are a fact of nature, attempts to create a society based on
   "equality" (i.e. making everyone identical in terms of possessions and
   so forth) is impossible and "unnatural." That this would be music to
   the ears of the wealthy should go without saying.

   Before continuing, we must note that Rothbard is destroying language to
   make his point and that he is not the first to abuse language in this
   particular way. In George Orwell's 1984, the expression "all men are
   created equal" could be translated into Newspeak "but only in the same
   sense in which All men are redhaired is a possible Oldspeak sentence.
   It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed a palpable
   untruth -- i.e. that all men are of equal size, weight, or strength."
   ["Appendix: The Principles of Newspeak", 1984, p. 246] It is nice to
   know that "Mr. Libertarian" is stealing ideas from Big Brother, and for
   the same reason: to make critical thought impossible by restricting the
   meaning of words.

   "Equality," in the context of political discussion, does not mean
   "identical," it means equality of rights, respect, worth, power and so
   forth. It does not imply treating everyone identically (for example,
   expecting an eighty year old man to do identical work as an eighteen
   violates treating both equally with respect as unique individuals).
   Needless to say, no anarchist has ever advocated such a notion of
   equality as being identical. As discussed in [1]section A.2.5,
   anarchists have always based our arguments on the need for social
   equality on the fact that, while people are different, we all have the
   same right to be free and that inequality in wealth produces
   inequalities of liberty. For anarchists:

     "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity . . .
     Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the
     forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies
     freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat,
     drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the
     same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual
     needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal
     opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from
     levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible
     variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse,
     and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling,
     in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your
     individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and
     variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than
     liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage.
     That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human
     existence." [What is Anarchism?, pp. 164-5]

   So it is precisely the diversity of individuals (their uniqueness)
   which drives the anarchist support for equality, not its denial. Thus
   anarchists reject the Rothbardian-Newspeak definition of equality as
   meaningless. No two people are identical and so imposing "identical"
   equality between them would mean treating them as unequals, i.e. not
   having equal worth or giving them equal respect as befits them as human
   beings and fellow unique individuals.

   So what should we make of Rothbard's claim? It is tempting just to
   quote Rousseau when he argued "it is . . . useless to inquire whether
   there is any essential connection between the two inequalities [social
   and natural]; for this would be only asking, in other words, whether
   those who command are necessarily better than those who obey, and if
   strength of body or of mind, wisdom, or virtue are always found in
   particular individuals, in proportion to their power or wealth: a
   question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
   masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
   the truth." [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 49] This seems
   applicable when you see Rothbard proclaim that inequality of
   individuals will lead to inequalities of income as "each man will tend
   to earn an income equal to his 'marginal productivity.'" This is
   because "some men" (and it is always men!) are "more intelligent,
   others more alert and farsighted, than the remainder of the population"
   and capitalism will "allow the rise of these natural aristocracies." In
   fact, for Rothbard, all government, in its essence, is a conspiracy
   against the superior man. [The Logic of Action II, p. 29 and p. 34] But
   a few more points should be raised.

   The uniqueness of individuals has always existed but for the vast
   majority of human history we have lived in very egalitarian societies.
   If social inequality did, indeed, flow from natural inequalities then
   all societies would be marked by it. This is not the case. Indeed,
   taking a relatively recent example, many visitors to the early United
   States noted its egalitarian nature, something that soon changed with
   the rise of capitalism (a rise dependent upon state action, we must
   add). This implies that the society we live in (its rights framework,
   the social relationships it generates and so forth) has far more of a
   decisive impact on inequality than individual differences. Thus certain
   rights frameworks will tend to magnify "natural" inequalities (assuming
   that is the source of the initial inequality, rather than, say,
   violence and force). As Noam Chomsky argues:

     "Presumably it is the case that in our 'real world' some combination
     of attributes is conducive to success in responding to 'the demands
     of the economic system.' Let us agree, for the sake of discussion,
     that this combination of attributes is in part a matter of native
     endowment. Why does this (alleged) fact pose an 'intellectual
     dilemma' to egalitarians? Note that we can hardly claim much insight
     into just what the relevant combination of attributes may be . . .
     One might suppose that some mixture of avarice, selfishness, lack of
     concern for others, aggressiveness, and similar characteristics play
     a part in getting ahead and 'making it' in a competitive society
     based on capitalist principles. . . . Whatever the correct
     collection of attributes may be, we may ask what follows from the
     fact, if it is a fact, that some partially inherited combination of
     attributes tends to material success? All that follows . . . is a
     comment on our particular social and economic arrangements . . . The
     egalitarian might respond, in all such cases, that the social order
     should be changed so that the collection of attributes that tends to
     bring success no longer do so. He might even argue that in a more
     decent society, the attributes that now lead to success would be
     recognised as pathological, and that gentle persuasion might be a
     proper means to help people to overcome their unfortunate malady."
     [The Chomsky Reader, p. 190]

   So if we change society then the social inequalities we see today would
   disappear. It is more than probable that natural difference has been
   long ago been replaced with social inequalities, especially
   inequalities of property. And as we argue in [2]section F.8 these
   inequalities of property were initially the result of force, not
   differences in ability. Thus to claim that social inequality flows from
   natural differences is false as most social inequality has flown from
   violence and force. This initial inequality has been magnified by the
   framework of capitalist property rights and so the inequality within
   capitalism is far more dependent upon, say, the existence of wage
   labour rather than "natural" differences between individuals.

   This can be seen from existing society: we see that in workplaces and
   across industries many, if not most, unique individuals receive
   identical wages for identical work (although this often is not the case
   for women and blacks, who receive less wages than male, white workers
   for identical labour). Similarly, capitalists have deliberately
   introduced wage inequalities and hierarchies for no other reason that
   to divide and so rule the workforce (see [3]section D.10). Thus, if we
   assume egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, then much of
   capitalist economic life is in such a revolt and when it is not, the
   "natural" inequalities have usually been imposed artificially by those
   in power either within the workplace or in society as a whole by means
   of state intervention, property laws and authoritarian social
   structures. Moreover, as we indicated in [4]section C.2.5, anarchists
   have been aware of the collective nature of production within
   capitalism since Proudhon wrote What is Property? in 1840. Rothbard
   ignores both the anarchist tradition and reality when he stresses that
   individual differences produce inequalities of outcome. As an economist
   with a firmer grasp of the real world put it, the "notion that wages
   depend on personal skill, as expressed in the value of output, makes no
   sense in any organisation where production is interdependent and joint
   -- which is to say it makes no sense in virtually any organisation."
   [James K. Galbraith, Created Unequal, p. 263]

   Thus "natural" differences do not necessarily result in inequality as
   such nor do such differences have much meaning in an economy marked by
   joint production. Given a different social system, "natural"
   differences would be encouraged and celebrated far wider than they are
   under capitalism (where hierarchy ensures the crushing of individuality
   rather than its encouragement) without any reduction in social
   equality. At its most basic, the elimination of hierarchy within the
   workplace would not only increase freedom but also reduce inequality as
   the few would not be able to monopolise the decision making process and
   the fruit of joint productive activity. So the claim that "natural"
   differences generate social inequalities is question begging in the
   extreme -- it takes the rights framework of capitalism as a given and
   ignores the initial source of inequality in property and power. Indeed,
   inequality of outcome or reward is more likely to be influenced by
   social conditions rather than individual differences (as would be
   expected in a society based on wage labour or other forms of
   exploitation).

   Rothbard is at pains to portray egalitarians as driven by envy of the
   rich. It is hard to credit "envy" as the driving force of the likes of
   Bakunin and Kropotkin who left the life of wealthy aristocrats to
   become anarchists, who suffered imprisonment in their struggles for
   liberty for all rather than an elite. When this is pointed out, the
   typical right-wing response is to say that this shows that real working
   class people are not socialists. In other words if you are a working
   class anarchist then you are driven by envy and if not, if you reject
   your class background, then you show that socialism is not a working
   class movement! So driven by this assumption and hatred for socialism
   Rothbard went so far as to distort Karl Marx's words to fit it into his
   own ideological position. He stated that "Marx concedes the truth of
   the charge of anti-communists then and now" that communism was the
   expression of envy and a desire to reduce all to a common level.
   Except, of course, Marx did nothing of the kind. In the passages
   Rothbard presented as evidence for his claims, Marx is critiquing what
   he termed "crude" communism (the "this type of communism" in the
   passage Rothbard quoted but clearly did not understand) and it is,
   therefore, not surprising Marx "clearly did not stress this dark side
   of communist revolution in the his later writings" as he explicitly
   rejected this type of communism! For Rothbard, all types of socialism
   seem to be identical and identified with central planning -- hence his
   bizarre comment that "Stalin established socialism in the Soviet
   Union." [The Logic of Action II, pp. 394-5 and p. 200]

   Another reason for "anarcho"-capitalist lack of concern for equality is
   that they think that (to use Robert Nozick's expression) "liberty
   upsets patterns". It is argued that equality (or any "end-state
   principle of justice") cannot be "continuously realised without
   continuous interference with people's lives," i.e. can only be
   maintained by restricting individual freedom to make exchanges or by
   taxation of income. [Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 160-3] However,
   what this argument fails to acknowledge is that inequality also
   restricts individual freedom and that the capitalist property rights
   framework is not the only one possible. After all, money is power and
   inequalities in terms of power easily result in restrictions of liberty
   and the transformation of the majority into order takers rather than
   free producers. In other words, once a certain level of inequality is
   reached property does not promote, but actually conflicts with, the
   ends which render private property legitimate. As we argue in [5]the
   next section, inequality can easily led to the situation where
   self-ownership is used to justify its own negation and so unrestricted
   property rights will undermine the meaningful self-determination which
   many people intuitively understand by the term "self-ownership" (i.e.,
   what anarchists would usually call "freedom" rather than
   self-ownership). Thus private property itself leads to continuous
   interference with people's lives, as does the enforcement of Nozick's
   "just" distribution of property and the power that flows from such
   inequality. Moreover, as many critics have noted Nozick's argument
   assumes what it sets out to proves. As one put it, while Nozick may
   "wish to defend capitalist private property rights by insisting that
   these are founded in basic liberties," in fact he "has produced . . .
   an argument for unrestricted private property using unrestricted
   private property, and thus he begs the question he tries to answer."
   [Andrew Kerhohan, "Capitalism and Self-Ownership", pp. 60-76,
   Capitalism, Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miler, Jr, Jeffrey Paul and
   John Ahrens (eds.), p. 71]

   So in response to the claim that equality could only be maintained by
   continuously interfering with people's lives, anarchists would say that
   the inequalities produced by capitalist property rights also involve
   extensive and continuous interference with people's lives. After all,
   as Bob Black notes "it is apparent that the source of greatest direct
   duress experienced by the ordinary adult is not the state but rather
   the business that employs him [or her]. 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] For example, a worker employed by a capitalist
   cannot freely exchange the machines or raw materials they have been
   provided with to use but Nozick does not class this distribution of
   "restricted" property rights as infringing liberty (nor does he argue
   that wage slavery itself restricts freedom, of course). Thus claims
   that equality involves infringing liberty ignores the fact that
   inequality also infringes liberty (never mind the significant negative
   effects of inequality, both of wealth and power, we discussed in
   [6]section B.1). A reorganisation of society could effectively minimise
   inequalities by eliminating the major source of such inequalities (wage
   labour) by self-management. We have no desire to restrict free
   exchanges (after all, most anarchists desire to see the "gift economy"
   become a reality sooner or later) but we argue that free exchanges need
   not involve the unrestricted capitalist property rights Nozick assumes
   (see [7]section I.5.12 for a discussion of "capitalistic acts" within
   an anarchist society).

   Rothbard, ironically, is aware of the fact that inequality restricts
   freedom for the many. As he put it "inequality of control" is an
   "inevitable corollary of freedom" for in any organisation "there will
   always be a minority of people who will rise to the position of leaders
   and others who will remain as followers in the rank and file." [Op.
   Cit., p. 30] To requote Bob Black: "Some people giving orders and
   others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude." [Op. Cit., p.
   147] Perhaps if Rothbard had spent some time in a workplace rather than
   in a tenured academic post he may have realised that bosses are rarely
   the natural elite he thought they were. Like the factory owner Engels,
   he was blissfully unaware that it is the self-activity of the
   non-"elite" on the shop floor (the product of which the boss
   monopolises) that keeps the whole hierarchical structure going (as we
   discuss in [8]section H.4.4, the work to rule -- were workers do
   exactly what the boss orders them to do -- is a devastating weapon in
   the class struggle). It does seem somewhat ironic that the anti-Marxist
   Rothbard should has recourse to the same argument as Engels in order to
   refute the anarchist case for freedom within association! It should
   also be mentioned that Black has also recognised this, noting that
   right-"libertarianism" and mainstream Marxism "are as different as Coke
   and Pepsi when it comes to consecrating class society and the source of
   its power, work. Only upon the firm foundation of factory fascism and
   office oligarchy do libertarians and Leninists dare to debate the
   trivial issues dividing them." [Op. Cit., p. 146]

   So, as Rothbard admits, inequality produces a class system and
   authoritarian social relationships which are rooted in ownership and
   control of private property. These produce specific areas of conflict
   over liberty, a fact of life which Rothbard (like other
   "anarcho"-capitalists) is keen to deny as we discuss in [9]section
   F.3.2. Thus, for anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist opposition to
   equality misses the point and is extremely question begging. Anarchists
   do not desire to make people "identical" (which would be impossible and
   a total denial of liberty and equality) but to make the social
   relationships between individuals equal in power. In other words, they
   desire a situation where people interact together without
   institutionalised power or hierarchy and are influenced by each other
   "naturally," in proportion to how the (individual) differences between
   (social) equals are applicable in a given context. To quote Michael
   Bakunin, "[t]he greatest intelligence would not be equal to a
   comprehension of the whole. Thence results . . . the necessity of the
   division and association of labour. I receive and I give -- such is
   human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there
   is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual,
   temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." [God
   and the State, p. 33]

   Such an environment can only exist within self-managed associations,
   for capitalism (i.e. wage labour) creates very specific relations and
   institutions of authority. It is for this reason anarchists are
   socialists. In other words, anarchists support equality precisely
   because we recognise that everyone is unique. If we are serious about
   "equality of rights" or "equal freedom" then conditions must be such
   that people can enjoy these rights and liberties. If we assume the
   right to develop one's capacities to the fullest, for example, then
   inequality of resources and so power within society destroys that right
   simply because most people do not have the means to freely exercise
   their capacities (they are subject to the authority of the boss, for
   example, during work hours).

   So, in direct contrast to anarchism, right-"libertarianism" is
   unconcerned about any form of equality except "equality of rights".
   This blinds them to the realities of life; in particular, the impact of
   economic and social power on individuals within society and the social
   relationships of domination they create. Individuals may be "equal"
   before the law and in rights, but they may not be free due to the
   influence of social inequality, the relationships it creates and how it
   affects the law and the ability of the oppressed to use it. Because of
   this, all anarchists insist that equality is essential for freedom,
   including those in the Individualist Anarchist tradition the
   "anarcho"-capitalist tries to co-opt ("Spooner and Godwin insist that
   inequality corrupts freedom. Their anarchism is directed as much
   against inequality as against tyranny" and so "[w]hile sympathetic to
   Spooner's individualist anarchism, they [Rothbard and David Friedman]
   fail to notice or conveniently overlook its egalitarian implications."
   [Stephen L. Newman, Liberalism at Wit's End, p. 74 and p. 76]). Without
   social equality, individual freedom is so restricted that it becomes a
   mockery (essentially limiting freedom of the majority to choosing which
   master will govern them rather than being free).

   Of course, by defining "equality" in such a restrictive manner,
   Rothbard's own ideology is proved to be nonsense. As L.A. Rollins
   notes, "Libertarianism, the advocacy of 'free society' in which people
   enjoy 'equal freedom' and 'equal rights,' is actually a specific form
   of egalitarianism. As such, Libertarianism itself is a revolt against
   nature. If people, by their very biological nature, are unequal in all
   the attributes necessary to achieving, and preserving 'freedom' and
   'rights' . . . then there is no way that people can enjoy 'equal
   freedom' or 'equal rights'. If a free society is conceived as a society
   of 'equal freedom,' then there ain't no such thing as 'a free
   society'." [The Myth of Natural Law, p. 36] Under capitalism, freedom
   is a commodity like everything else. The more money you have, the
   greater your freedom. "Equal" freedom, in the Newspeak-Rothbardian
   sense, cannot exist! As for "equality before the law", its clear that
   such a hope is always dashed against the rocks of wealth and market
   power. As far as rights go, of course, both the rich and the poor have
   an "equal right" to sleep under a bridge (assuming the bridge's owner
   agrees of course!); but the owner of the bridge and the homeless have
   different rights, and so they cannot be said to have "equal rights" in
   the Newspeak-Rothbardian sense either. Needless to say, poor and rich
   will not "equally" use the "right" to sleep under a bridge, either.

   As Bob Black observed: "The time of your life is the one commodity you
   can sell but never buy back. Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a
   revolt against nature, but his day is 24 hours long, just like
   everybody else's." [Op. Cit., p. 147]

   By twisting the language of political debate, the vast differences in
   power in capitalist society can be "blamed" not on an unjust and
   authoritarian system but on "biology" (we are all unique individuals,
   after all). Unlike genes (although biotechnology corporations are
   working on this, too!), human society can be changed, by the
   individuals who comprise it, to reflect the basic features we all share
   in common -- our humanity, our ability to think and feel, and our need
   for freedom.

F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?

   Simply because a disregard for equality soon ends with liberty for the
   majority being negated in many important ways. Most
   "anarcho"-capitalists and right-Libertarians deny (or at best ignore)
   market power. Rothbard, for example, claims that economic power does
   not exist under capitalism; what people call "economic power" is
   "simply the right under freedom to refuse to make an exchange" and so
   the concept is meaningless. [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 222]

   However, the fact is that there are substantial power centres in
   society (and so are the source of hierarchical power and authoritarian
   social relations) which are not the state. As Elisee Reclus put it, the
   "power of kings and emperors has limits, but that of wealth has none at
   all. The dollar is the master of masters." Thus wealth is a source of
   power as "the essential thing" under capitalism "is to train oneself to
   pursue monetary gain, with the goal of commanding others by means of
   the omnipotence of money. One's power increases in direct proportion to
   one's economic resources." [quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin
   (eds.), Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 95 and pp. 96-7] Thus the
   central fallacy of "anarcho"-capitalism is the (unstated) assumption
   that the various actors within an economy have relatively equal power.
   This assumption has been noted by many readers of their works. For
   example, Peter Marshall notes that "'anarcho-capitalists' like Murray
   Rothbard assume individuals would have equal bargaining power in a
   [capitalist] market-based society." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 46]
   George Walford also makes this point in his comments on David
   Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom:

     "The private ownership envisaged by the anarcho-capitalists would be
     very different from that which we know. It is hardly going too far
     to say that while the one is nasty, the other would be nice. In
     anarcho-capitalism there would be no National Insurance, no Social
     Security, no National Health Service and not even anything
     corresponding to the Poor Laws; there would be no public safety-nets
     at all. It would be a rigorously competitive society: work, beg or
     die. But as one reads on, learning that each individual would have
     to buy, personally, all goods and services needed, not only food,
     clothing and shelter but also education, medicine, sanitation,
     justice, police, all forms of security and insurance, even
     permission to use the streets (for these also would be privately
     owned), as one reads about all this a curious feature emerges:
     everybody always has enough money to buy all these things.

     "There are no public casualty wards or hospitals or hospices, but
     neither is there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public
     educational system but no uneducated children, no public police
     service but nobody unable to buy the services of an efficient
     security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy the use of a
     private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much more
     than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over
     others.

     "No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it
     for granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no
     machinery for restraining competition (for this would need to
     exercise authority over the competitors and it is an anarcho-
     capitalist society) competition would not be carried to the point
     where anybody actually suffered from it. While proclaiming their
     system to be a competitive one, in which private interest rules
     unchecked, they show it operating as a co-operative one, in which no
     person or group profits at the cost of another."
     [On the Capitalist Anarchists]

   This assumption of (relative) equality comes to the fore in Murray
   Rothbard's "Homesteading" concept of property (discussed in [10]section
   F.4.1). "Homesteading" paints a picture of individuals and families
   going into the wilderness to make a home for themselves, fighting
   against the elements and so forth. It does not invoke the idea of
   transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people or a
   population without land, resources and selling their labour to others.
   Rothbard as noted argued that economic power does not exist (at least
   under capitalism, as we saw in [11]section F.1 he does make -- highly
   illogical -- exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman's example of a
   pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty "defence" firm coming to an
   agreement (see [12]section F.6.3) implicitly assumes that the firms
   have equal bargaining powers and resources -- if not, then the
   bargaining process would be very one-sided and the smaller company
   would think twice before taking on the larger one in battle (the likely
   outcome if they cannot come to an agreement on this issue) and so
   compromise.

   However, the right-"libertarian" denial of market power is
   unsurprising. The "necessity, not the redundancy, of the assumption
   about natural equality is required "if the inherent problems of
   contract theory are not to become too obvious." If some individuals are
   assumed to have significantly more power are more capable than others,
   and if they are always self-interested, then a contract that creates
   equal partners is impossible -- the pact will establish an association
   of masters and servants. Needless to say, the strong will present the
   contract as being to the advantage of both: the strong no longer have
   to labour (and become rich, i.e. even stronger) and the weak receive an
   income and so do not starve. [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p.
   61] So if freedom is considered as a function of ownership then it is
   very clear that individuals lacking property (outside their own body,
   of course) lose effective control over their own person and labour
   (which was, least we forget, the basis of their equal natural rights).
   When ones bargaining power is weak (which is typically the case in the
   labour market) exchanges tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and
   power over time rather than working towards an equalisation.

   In other words, "contract" need not replace power if the bargaining
   position and wealth of the would-be contractors are not equal (for, if
   the bargainers had equal power it is doubtful they would agree to sell
   control of their liberty/labour to another). This means that "power"
   and "market" are not antithetical terms. While, in an abstract sense,
   all market relations are voluntary in practice this is not the case
   within a capitalist market. A large company has a comparative advantage
   over smaller ones, communities and individual workers which will
   definitely shape the outcome of any contract. For example, a large
   company or rich person will have access to more funds and so stretch
   out litigations and strikes until their opponents resources are
   exhausted. Or, if a company is polluting the environment, the local
   community may put up with the damage caused out of fear that the
   industry (which it depends upon) would relocate to another area. If
   members of the community did sue, then the company would be merely
   exercising its property rights when it threatened to move to another
   location. In such circumstances, the community would "freely" consent
   to its conditions or face massive economic and social disruption. And,
   similarly, "the landlords' agents who threatened to discharge
   agricultural workers and tenants who failed to vote the reactionary
   ticket" in the 1936 Spanish election were just exercising their
   legitimate property rights when they threatened working people and
   their families with economic uncertainty and distress. [Murray
   Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 260]

   If we take the labour market, it is clear that the "buyers" and
   "sellers" of labour power are rarely on an equal footing (if they were,
   then capitalism would soon go into crisis -- see [13]section C.7). As
   we stressed in [14]section C.9, under capitalism competition in labour
   markets is typically skewed in favour of employers. Thus the ability to
   refuse an exchange weighs most heavily on one class than another and so
   ensures that "free exchange" works to ensure the domination (and so
   exploitation) of one by the other. Inequality in the market ensures
   that the decisions of the majority of people within it are shaped in
   accordance with that needs of the powerful, not the needs of all. It
   was for this reason, for example, that the Individual Anarchist J.K.
   Ingalls opposed Henry George's proposal of nationalising the land.
   Ingalls was well aware that the rich could outbid the poor for leases
   on land and so the dispossession of the working class would continue.

   The market, therefore, does not end power or unfreedom -- they are
   still there, but in different forms. And for an exchange to be truly
   voluntary, both parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or
   influence its terms. Unfortunately, these conditions are rarely meet on
   the labour market or within the capitalist market in general. Thus
   Rothbard's argument that economic power does not exist fails to
   acknowledge that the rich can out-bid the poor for resources and that a
   corporation generally has greater ability to refuse a contract (with an
   individual, union or community) than vice versa (and that the impact of
   such a refusal is such that it will encourage the others involved to
   compromise far sooner). In such circumstances, formally free
   individuals will have to "consent" to be unfree in order to survive.
   Looking at the tread-mill of modern capitalism, at what we end up
   tolerating for the sake of earning enough money to survive it comes as
   no surprise that anarchists have asked whether the market is serving us
   or are we serving it (and, of course, those who have positions of power
   within it).

   So inequality cannot be easily dismissed. As Max Stirner pointed out,
   free competition "is not 'free,' because I lack the things for
   competition." Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of "things") we
   find that "[u]nder the regime of the commonality the labourers always
   fall into the hands of the possessors . . . of the capitalists,
   therefore. The labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of
   the value that it has for the customer . . . The capitalist has the
   greatest profit from it." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 262 and p. 115] It
   is interesting to note that even Stirner recognised that capitalism
   results in exploitation and that its roots lie in inequalities in
   property and so power. And we may add that value the labourer does not
   "realise" goes into the hands of the capitalists, who invest it in more
   "things" and which consolidates and increases their advantage in "free"
   competition. To quote Stephan L. Newman:

     "Another disquieting aspect of the libertarians' refusal to
     acknowledge power in the market is their failure to confront the
     tension between freedom and autonomy. . . Wage labour under
     capitalism is, of course, formally free labour. No one is forced to
     work at gun point. Economic circumstance, however, often has the
     effect of force; it compels the relatively poor to accept work under
     conditions dictated by owners and managers. The individual worker
     retains freedom [i.e. negative liberty] but loses autonomy [positive
     liberty]." [Liberalism at Wit's End, pp. 122-123]

   If we consider "equality before the law" it is obvious that this also
   has limitations in an (materially) unequal society. Brian Morris notes
   that for Ayn Rand, "[u]nder capitalism . . . politics (state) and
   economics (capitalism) are separated . . . This, of course, is pure
   ideology, for Rand's justification of the state is that it 'protects'
   private property, that is, it supports and upholds the economic power
   of capitalists by coercive means." [Ecology & Anarchism, p. 189] The
   same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies"
   and "general libertarian law code." If within a society a few own all
   the resources and the majority are dispossessed, then any law code
   which protects private property automatically empowers the owning
   class. Workers will always be initiating force if they rebel against
   their bosses or act against the code and so equality before the law"
   reflects and reinforces inequality of power and wealth. This means that
   a system of property rights protects the liberties of some people in a
   way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power over others. And
   this critique cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights in
   question, we have to assess the relative importance of the various
   kinds of liberty and other values we hold dear.

   Therefore right-"libertarian" disregard for equality is important
   because it allows "anarcho"-capitalism to ignore many important
   restrictions of freedom in society. In addition, it allows them to
   brush over the negative effects of their system by painting an unreal
   picture of a capitalist society without vast extremes of wealth and
   power (indeed, they often construe capitalist society in terms of an
   ideal -- namely artisan production -- that is pre-capitalist and whose
   social basis has been eroded by capitalist development). Inequality
   shapes the decisions we have available and what ones we make:

     "An 'incentive' is always available in conditions of substantial
     social inequality that ensure that the 'weak' enter into a contract.
     When social inequality prevails, questions arise about what counts
     as voluntary entry into a contract. This is why socialists and
     feminists have focused on the conditions of entry into the
     employment contract and the marriage contract. Men and women . . .
     are now juridically free and equal citizens, but, in unequal social
     conditions, the possibility cannot be ruled out that some or many
     contracts create relationships that bear uncomfortable resemblances
     to a slave contract." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 62]

   This ideological confusion of right-libertarianism can also be seen
   from their opposition to taxation. On the one hand, they argue that
   taxation is wrong because it takes money from those who "earn" it and
   gives it to the poor. On the other hand, "free market" capitalism is
   assumed to be a more equal society! If taxation takes from the rich and
   gives to the poor, how will "anarcho"-capitalism be more egalitarian?
   That equalisation mechanism would be gone (of course, it could be
   claimed that all great riches are purely the result of state
   intervention skewing the "free market" but that places all their "rags
   to riches" stories in a strange position). Thus we have a problem:
   either we have relative equality or we do not. Either we have riches,
   and so market power, or we do not. And its clear from the likes of
   Rothbard, "anarcho"-capitalism will not be without its millionaires
   (there is, according to him, apparently nothing un-libertarian about
   "hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires,
   and a libertarian party" [quoted by Black, Op. Cit., p. 142]). And so
   we are left with market power and so extensive unfreedom.

   Thus, for a ideology that denounces egalitarianism as a "revolt against
   nature" it is pretty funny that they paint a picture of
   "anarcho"-capitalism as a society of (relative) equals. In other words,
   their propaganda is based on something that has never existed, and
   never will: an egalitarian capitalist society. Without the implicit
   assumption of equality which underlies their rhetoric then the obvious
   limitations of their vision of "liberty" become too obvious. Any real
   laissez-faire capitalism would be unequal and "those who have wealth
   and power would only increase their privileges, while the weak and poor
   would go to the wall . . . Right-wing libertarians merely want freedom
   for themselves to protect their privileges and to exploit others."
   [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 653]

F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal society?

   Like the right-liberalism it is derived from, "anarcho"-capitalism is
   based on the concept of "harmony of interests" which was advanced by
   the likes of Frdric Bastiat in the 19th century and Rothbard's mentor
   Ludwig von Mises in the 20th. For Rothbard, "all classes live in
   harmony through the voluntary exchange of goods and services that
   mutually benefits them all." This meant that capitalists and workers
   have no antagonistic class interests [Classical Economics: An Austrian
   Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 2, p. 380 and p.
   382]

   For Rothbard, class interest and conflict does not exist within
   capitalism, except when it is supported by state power. It was, he
   asserted, "fallacious to employ such terms as 'class interests' or
   'class conflict' in discussing the market economy." This was because of
   two things: "harmony of interests of different groups" and "lack of
   homogeneity among the interests of any one social class." It is only in
   "relation to state action that the interests of different men become
   welded into 'classes'." This means that the "homogeneity emerges from
   the interventions of the government into society." [Conceived in
   Liberty, vol. 1, p. 261] So, in other words, class conflict is
   impossible under capitalism because of the wonderful coincidence that
   there are, simultaneously, both common interests between individuals
   and classes and lack of any!

   You do not need to be an anarchist or other socialist to see that this
   argument is nonsense. Adam Smith, for example, simply recorded reality
   when he noted that workers and bosses have "interests [which] are by no
   means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give
   as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to
   raise, the latter to lower the wages of labour." [The Wealth of
   Nations, p. 58] The state, Smith recognised, was a key means by which
   the property owning class maintained their position in society. As
   such, it reflects economic class conflict and interests and does not
   create it (this is not to suggest that economic class is the only form
   of social hierarchy of course, just an extremely important one).
   American workers, unlike Rothbard, were all too aware of the truth in
   Smith's analysis. For example, one group argued in 1840 that the bosses
   "hold us then at their mercy, and make us work solely for their profit
   . . . The capitalist has no other interest in us, than to get as much
   labour out of us as possible. We are hired men, and hired men, like
   hired horses, have no souls." Thus "their interests as capitalist, and
   ours as labourers, are directly opposite" and "in the nature of things,
   hostile, and irreconcilable." [quoted by Christopher L. Tomlins, Law,
   Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic, p. 10] Then there
   is Alexander Berkman's analysis:

     "It is easy to understand why the masters don't want you to be
     organised, why they are afraid of a real labour union. They know
     very well that a strong, fighting union can compel higher wages and
     better conditions, which means less profit for the plutocrats. That
     is why they do everything in their power to stop labour from
     organising . . .

     "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 . . . and what is good
     for the employer is also good for his employees . . . If your
     interests are the same as those of your boss, then why should you
     fight him? That is what they tell you . . . It is good for the
     industrial magnates to have their workers believe [this] . . . [as
     they] 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 . . . If you listen to your
     exploiters and their mouthpieces you will be 'good' and consider
     only the interests of your masters . . . but no one cares about your
     interests . . . '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.

     "But . . . the interests of capital and labour are not the same. No
     greater lie was ever invented than the so-called 'identity of
     interests' . . . It is clear that . . . they are entirely opposite,
     in fact antagonistic to each other."
     [What is Anarchism?, pp. 74-5]

   That Rothbard denies this says a lot about the power of ideology.

   Rothbard was clear what unions do, namely limit the authority of the
   boss and ensure that workers keep more of the surplus value they
   produce. As he put it, unions "attempt to persuade workers that they
   can better their lot at the expense of the employer. Consequently, they
   invariably attempt as much as possible to establish work rules that
   hinder management's directives . . . In other words, instead of
   agreeing to submit to the work orders of management in exchange for his
   pay, the worker now set up not only minimum wages, but also work rules
   without which they refuse to work." This will "lower output." [The
   Logic of Action II, p. 40 and p. 41] Notice the assumption, that the
   income of and authority of the boss are sacrosanct.

   For Rothbard, unions lower productivity and harm profits because they
   contest the authority of the boss to do what they like on their
   property (apparently, laissez-faire was not applicable for working
   class people during working hours). Yet this implicitly acknowledges
   that there are conflicts of interests between workers and bosses. It
   does not take too much thought to discover possible conflicts of
   interests which could arise between workers who seek to maximise their
   wages and minimise their labour and bosses who seek to minimise their
   wage costs and maximise the output their workers produce. It could be
   argued that if workers do win this conflict of interests then their
   bosses will go out of business and so they harm themselves by not
   obeying their industrial masters. The rational worker, in this
   perspective, would be the one who best understood that his or her
   interests have become the same as the interests of the boss because his
   or her prosperity will depend on how well their firm is doing. In such
   cases, they will put the interest of the firm before their own and not
   hinder the boss by questioning their authority. If that is the case,
   then "harmony of interests" simply translates as "bosses know best" and
   "do what you are told" -- and such obedience is a fine "harmony" for
   the order giver we are sure!

   So the interesting thing is that Rothbard's perspective produces a
   distinctly servile conclusion. If workers do not have a conflict of
   interests with their bosses then, obviously, the logical thing for the
   employee is to do whatever their boss orders them to do. By serving
   their master, they automatically benefit themselves. In contrast,
   anarchists have rejected such a position. For example, William Godwin
   rejected capitalist private property precisely because of the "spirit
   of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud" it
   produced. [An Enquiry into Political Justice, p. 732]

   Moreover, we should note that Rothbard's diatribe against unions also
   implicitly acknowledges the socialist critique of capitalism which
   stresses that it is being subject to the authority of boss during work
   hours which makes exploitation possible (see [15]section C.2). If wages
   represented the workers' "marginal" contribution to production, bosses
   would not need to ensure their orders were followed. So any real boss
   fights unions precisely because they limit their ability to extract as
   much product as possible from the worker for the agreed wage. As such,
   the hierarchical social relations within the workplace ensure that
   there are no "harmony of interests" as the key to a successful
   capitalist firm is to minimise wage costs in order to maximise profits.
   It should also be noted that Rothbard has recourse to another concept
   "Austrian" economists claims to reject during his anti-union comments.
   Somewhat ironically, he appeals to equilibrium analysis as, apparently,
   "wage rates on the non-union labour market will always tend toward
   equilibrium in a smooth and harmonious manner" (in another essay, he
   opines that "in the Austrian tradition . . . the entrepreneur
   harmoniously adjusts the economy in the direction of equilibrium").
   [Op. Cit., p. 41 and p. 234] True, he does not say that the wages will
   reach equilibrium (and what stops them, unless, in part, it is the
   actions of entrepreneurs disrupting the economy?) however, it is
   strange that the labour market can approximate a situation which
   Austrian economists claim does not exist! However, as noted in
   [16]section C.1.6 this fiction is required to hide the obvious economic
   power of the boss class under capitalism.

   Somewhat ironically, given his claims of "harmony of interests,"
   Rothbard was well aware that landlords and capitalists have always used
   the state to further their interests. However, he preferred to call
   this "mercentilism" rather than capitalism. As such, it is amusing to
   read his short article "Mercentilism: A Lesson for Our Times?" as it
   closely parallels Marx's classic account of "Primitive Accumulation"
   contained in volume 1 of Capital. [Rothbard, Op. Cit., pp. 43-55] The
   key difference is that Rothbard simply refused to see this state action
   as creating the necessary preconditions for his beloved capitalism nor
   does it seem to impact on his mantra of "harmony of interests" between
   classes. In spite of documenting exactly how the capitalist and
   landlord class used the state to enrich themselves at the expense of
   the working class, he refuses to consider how this refutes any claim of
   "harmony of interests" between exploiter and exploited.

   Rothbard rightly notes that mercantilism involved the "use of the state
   to cripple or prohibit one's competition." This applies to both foreign
   capitalists and to the working class who are, of course, competitors in
   terms of how income is divided. Unlike Marx, he simply failed to see
   how mercantilist policies were instrumental for building an industrial
   economy and creating a proletariat. Thus he thunders against
   mercantilism for "lowering interest rates artificially" and promoting
   inflation which "did not benefit the poor" as "wages habitually lagged
   behind the rise in prices." He describes the "desperate attempts by the
   ruling classes to coerce wages below their market rates." Somewhat
   ironically, given the "anarcho"-capitalist opposition to legal
   holidays, he noted the mercantilists "dislike of holidays, by which the
   'nation' was deprived of certain amounts of labour; the desire of the
   individual worker for leisure was never considered worthy of note." So
   why were such "bad" economic laws imposed? Simply because the landlords
   and capitalists were in charge of the state. As Rothbard notes, "this
   was clearly legislation for the benefit of the feudal landlords and to
   the detriment of the workers" while Parliament "was heavily
   landlord-dominated." In Massachusetts the upper house consisted "of the
   wealthiest merchants and landowners." The mercantilists, he notes but
   does not ponder, "were frankly interested in exploiting [the workers']
   labour to the utmost." [Op. Cit., p. 44, p. 46, p. 47, p. 51, p. 48, p.
   51, p. 47, p. 54 and p. 47] Yet these policies made perfect sense from
   their class perspective, they were essential for maximising a surplus
   (profits) which was subsequently invested in developing industry. As
   such, they were very successful and laid the foundation for the
   industrial capitalism of the 19th century. The key change between
   mercantilism and capitalism proper is that economic power is greater as
   the working class has been successfully dispossessed from the means of
   life and, as such, political power need not be appealed to as often and
   can appear, in rhetoric at least, defensive.

   Discussing attempts by employers in Massachusetts in 1670 and 1672 to
   get the state to enforce a maximum wage Rothbard opined that there
   "seemed to be no understanding of how wages are set in an unhampered
   market." [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, p. 18] On the contrary, dear
   professor, the employers were perfectly aware of how wages were set in
   a market where workers have the upper hand and, consequently, sought to
   use the state to hamper the market. As they have constantly done since
   the dawn of capitalism as, unlike certain economists, they are fully
   aware of the truth of "harmony of interests" and acted accordingly. As
   we document in [17]section F.8, the history of capitalism is filled
   with the capitalist class using the state to enforce the kind of
   "harmony of interests" which masters have always sought -- obedience.
   This statist intervention has continued to this day as, in practice,
   the capitalist class has never totally relied on economic power to
   enforce its rule due to the instability of the capitalist market -- see
   [18]section C.7 -- as well as the destructive effects of market forces
   on society and the desire to bolster its position in the economy at the
   expense of the working class -- see [19]section D.1. That the history
   and current practice of capitalism was not sufficient to dispel
   Rothbard of his "harmony of interests" position is significant. But, as
   Rothbard was always at pains to stress as a good "Austrian" economist,
   empirical testing does not prove or disprove a theory and so the
   history and practice of capitalism matters little when evaluating the
   pros and cons of that system (unless its history confirms Rothbard's
   ideology then he does make numerous empirical statements).

   For Rothbard, the obvious class based need for such policies is
   missing. Instead, we get the pathetic comment that only "certain"
   merchants and manufacturers "benefited from these mercantilist laws."
   [The Logic of Action II, p. 44] He applied this same myopic perspective
   to "actually existing" capitalism as well, of course, lamenting the use
   of the state by certain capitalists as the product of economic
   ignorance and/or special interests specific to the capitalists in
   question. He simply could not see the forest for the trees. This is
   hardly a myopia limited to Rothbard. Bastiat formulated his "harmony of
   interests" theory precisely when the class struggle between workers and
   capitalists had become a threat to the social order, when socialist
   ideas of all kinds (including anarchism, which Bastiat explicitly
   opposed) were spreading and the labour movement was organising
   illegally due to state bans in most countries. As such, he was
   propagating the notion that workers and bosses had interests in common
   when, in practice, it was most obviously the case they had not. What
   "harmony" that did exist was due to state repression of the labour
   movement, itself a strange necessity if labour and capital did share
   interests.

   The history of capitalism causes problems within "anarcho"-capitalism
   as it claims that everyone benefits from market exchanges and that
   this, not coercion, produces faster economic growth. If this is the
   case, then why did some individuals reject the market in order to
   enrich themselves by political means and, logically, impoverish
   themselves in the long run (and it has been an extremely long run)? And
   why have the economically dominant class generally also been the ones
   to control the state? After all, if there are no class interests or
   conflict then why has the property owning classes always sought state
   aid to skew the economy in its interests? If the classes did have
   harmonious interests then they would have no need to bolster their
   position nor would they seek to. Yet state policy has always reflected
   the needs of the property-owning elite -- subject to pressures from
   below, of course (as Rothbard rather lamely notes, without pondering
   the obvious implications, the "peasantry and the urban labourers and
   artisans were never able to control the state apparatus and were
   therefore at the bottom of the state-organised pyramid and exploited by
   the ruling groups." [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 1, p. 260]). It is no
   coincidence that the working classes have not been able to control the
   state nor that legislation is "grossly the favourer of the rich against
   the poor." [William Godwin, Op. Cit., p. 93] They are the ones passing
   the laws, after all. This long and continuing anti-labour intervention
   in the market does, though, place Rothbard's opinion that government is
   a conspiracy against the superior man in a new light!

   So when right-"libertarians" assert that there are "harmony of
   interests" between classes in an unhampered market, anarchists simply
   reply by pointing out that the very fact we have a "hampered" market
   shows that no such thing exists within capitalism. It will be argued,
   of course, that the right-"libertarian" is against state intervention
   for the capitalists (beyond defending their property which is a
   significant use of state power in and of itself) and that their
   political ideas aim to stop it. Which is true (and why a revolution
   would be needed to implement it!). However, the very fact that the
   capitalist class has habitually turned to the state to bolster its
   economic power is precisely the issue as it shows that the
   right-"libertarian" harmony of interests (on which they place so much
   stress as the foundation of their new order) simply does not exist. If
   it did, then the property owning class would never have turned to the
   state in the first place nor would it have tolerated "certain" of its
   members doing so.

   If there were harmony of interests between classes, then the bosses
   would not turn to death squads to kill rebel workers as they have
   habitually done (and it should be stressed that libertarian union
   organisers have been assassinated by bosses and their vigilantes,
   including the lynching of IWW members and business organised death
   squads against CNT members in Barcelona). This use of private and
   public violence should not be surprising, for, at the very least, as
   Mexican anarchist Ricardo Flores Magon noted, there can be no real
   fraternity between classes "because the possessing class is always
   disposed to perpetuate the economic, political, and social system that
   guarantees it the tranquil enjoyment of its plunders, while the working
   class makes efforts to destroy this iniquitous system." [Dreams of
   Freedom, p. 139]

   Rothbard's obvious hatred of unions and strikes can be explained by his
   ideological commitment to the "harmony of interests." This is because
   strikes and the need of working class people to organise gives the lie
   to the doctrine of "harmony of interests" between masters and workers
   that apologists for capitalism like Rothbard suggested underlay
   industrial relations. Worse, they give credibility to the notion that
   there exists opposed interests between classes. Strangely, Rothbard
   himself provides more than enough evidence to refute his own dogmas
   when he investigates state intervention on the market.

   Every ruling class seeks to deny that it has interests separate from
   the people under it. Significantly those who deny class struggle the
   most are usually those who practice it the most (for example,
   Mussolini, Pinochet and Thatcher all proclaimed the end of class
   struggle while, in America, the Republican-right denounces anyone who
   points out the results of their class war on the working class as
   advocating "class war"). The elite has long been aware, as Black
   Nationalist Steve Biko put it, that the "most potent weapon in the
   hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." Defenders of
   slavery and serfdom presented it as god's will and that the master's
   duty was to treat the slave well just as the slave's duty was to obey
   (while, of course, blaming the slave if the master did not hold up his
   side of the covenant). So every hierarchical system has its own version
   of the "harmony of interests" position and each hierarchical society
   which replaces the last mocks the previous incarnations of it while, at
   the same time, solemnly announcing that this society truly does have
   harmony of interests as its founding principle. Capitalism is no
   exception, with many economists repeating the mantra that every boss
   has proclaimed from the dawn of time, namely that workers and their
   masters have common interests. As usual, it is worthwhile to quote
   Rothbard on this matter. He (rightly) takes to task a defender of the
   slave master's version of "harmony of interests" and, in so doing,
   exposes the role of economics under capitalism. To quote Rothbard:

     "The increasing alienation of the slaves and the servants led . . .
     the oligarchy to try to win their allegiance by rationalising their
     ordeal as somehow natural, righteous, and divine. So have tyrants
     always tried to dupe their subjects into approving -- or at least
     remaining resigned to -- their fate . . . Servants, according to the
     emphatically non-servant [Reverend Samuel] Willard, were duty-bound
     to revere and obey their masters, to serve them diligently and
     cheerfully, and to be patient and submissive even to the cruellest
     master. A convenient ideology indeed for the masters! . . . All the
     subjects must do, in short, was to surrender their natural born gift
     of freedom and independence, to subject themselves completely to the
     whims and commands of others, who could then be blindly trusted to
     'take care' of them permanently . . .

     "Despite the myths of ideology and the threats of the whip, servants
     and slaves found many ways of protest and rebellion. Masters were
     continually denouncing servants for being disobedient, sullen, and
     lazy."
     [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, pp. 18-19]

   Change Reverend Samuel Willard to the emphatically non-worker Professor
   Murray Rothbard and we have a very succinct definition of the role his
   economics plays within capitalism. There are differences. The key one
   was that while Willard wanted permanent servitude, Rothbard sought a
   temporary form and allowed the worker to change masters. While Willard
   turned to the whip and the state, Rothbard turned to absolute private
   property and the capitalist market to ensure that workers had to sell
   their liberty to the boss class (unsurprisingly, as Willard lived in an
   economy whose workers had access to land and tools while in Rothbard's
   time the class monopolisation of the means of life was complete and
   workers have little alternative but to sell their liberty to the owning
   class).

   Rothbard did not seek to ban unions and strikes. He argued that his
   system of absolute property rights would simply make it nearly
   impossible for unions to organise or for any form of collective action
   to succeed. Even basic picketing would be impossible for, as Rothbard
   noted many a time, the pavement outside the workplace would be owned by
   the boss who would be as unlikely to allow picketing as he would allow
   a union. Thus we would have private property and economic power making
   collective struggle de facto illegal rather than the de jure illegality
   which the state has so enacted on behalf of the capitalists. As he put
   it, while unions were "theoretically compatible with the existence of a
   purely free market" he doubted that it would be possible as unions
   relied on the state to be "neutral" and tolerate their activities as
   they "acquire almost all their power through the wielding of force,
   specifically force against strike-beakers and against the property of
   employers." [The Logic of Action II, p. 41] Thus we find
   right-"libertarians" in favour of "defensive" violence (i.e., that
   limited to defending the property and power of the capitalists and
   landlords) while denouncing as violence any action of those subjected
   to it.

   Rothbard, of course, allowed workers to leave their employment in order
   to seek another job if they felt exploited. Yet for all his obvious
   hatred of unions and strikes, Rothbard does not ask the most basic
   question -- if there is not clash of interests between labour and
   capital then why do unions even exist and why do bosses always resist
   them (often brutally)? And why has capital always turned to the state
   to bolster its position in the labour market? If there were really
   harmony of interests between classes then capital would not have turned
   repeatedly to the state to crush the labour movement. For anarchists,
   the reasons are obvious as is why the bosses always deny any clash of
   interests for "it is to the interests of capital to keep the workers
   from understanding that they are wage slaves. The 'identity of
   interest'; swindle is one of the means of doing it . . . All those who
   profit from wage slavery are interested in keeping up the system, and
   all of them naturally try to prevent the workers from understanding the
   situation." [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 77]

   Rothbard's vociferous anti-unionism and his obvious desire to make any
   form of collective action by workers impossible in practice if not in
   law shows how economics has replaced religion as a control mechanism.
   In any hierarchical system it makes sense for the masters to
   indoctrinate the servant class with such self-serving nonsense but only
   capitalists have the advantage that it is proclaimed a "science" rather
   than, say, a religion. Yet even here, the parallels are close. As Colin
   Ward noted in passing, the "so-called Libertarianism of the political
   Right" is simply "the worship of the market economy." [Talking Anarchy,
   p. 76] So while Willard appealed to god as the basis of his natural
   order, Rothbard appeal to "science" was nothing of the kind given the
   ideological apriorism of "Austrian" economics. As a particularly
   scathing reviewer of one of his economics books rightly put it, the
   "main point of the book is to show that the never-never land of the
   perfectly free market economy represents the best of all conceivable
   worlds giving maximum satisfaction to all participants. Whatever is, is
   right in the free market . . . It would appear that Professor
   Rothbard's book is more akin to systematic theology than economics . .
   . its real interest belongs to the student of the sociology of
   religion." [D.N. Winch, The Economic Journal, vol. 74, No. 294, pp.
   481-2]

   To conclude, it is best to quote Emma Goldman's biting dismissal of the
   right-liberal individualism that Rothbard's ideology is just another
   form of. She rightly attacked that "'rugged individualism' which is
   only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his
   individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic
   laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by classes by means of
   trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the
   servile spirit . . . That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the
   strait-jacket of individuality . . . This 'rugged individualism' has
   inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class
   distinctions . . . 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the
   'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a
   slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen' . . . [and]
   in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and
   held up as virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain
   freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as . . . evil in
   the name of that same individualism." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 112]

   So, to conclude. Both the history and current practice of capitalism
   shows that there can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society.
   Anyone who claims otherwise has not been paying attention.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca25
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC2.html#secc25
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF3.html#secf31
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI5.html#seci512
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html#sech44
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF3.html#secf32
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF4.html#secf41
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF1.html
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html#secf63
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC9.html
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC2.html
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC1.html#secc16
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD1.html
