Capitalism is one of the two things all anarchists oppose. Capitalism is marked by two main features, "private property" (or in some cases, state-owned property) and wage labour. The latter, however, is dependent on the former, i.e. for wage labour to exist, workers must not own or control the means of production they use. In turn, private (or state) ownership of the means of production is only possible if there is a state, meaning mechanisms of organised coercion at the disposal of the propertied class (see section B.2).
Anarchists oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority and elite privilege ("Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery," to use Proudhon's words - What is Property, p. 251). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life.
Therefore, for all true anarchists, property is opposed as a source of authority, indeed despotism. To quote Proudhon on this subject:
"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign - for all these titles are synonymous - imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once. . . [and so] property engenders despotism. . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" [Op. Cit., pp. 266-7]
In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). Little wonder, then, that anarchists oppose private property as Anarchy is "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" [Op. Cit., p. 264] and call capitalism for what it is, namely wage slavery!
Also, it ought to be easy to see that capitalism, by giving rise to an ideologically inalienable "right" to private property, will also quickly give rise to inequalities in the distribution of external resources, and that this inequality in resource distribution will give rise to a further inequality in the relative bargaining positions of the propertied and the property less. While apologists for capitalism usually attempt to justify private property by claiming that "self-ownership" is a "universal right" (see section B.4.2 - "Is capitalism based on self-ownership?), it is clear that capitalism actually makes universal self-ownership, in it's true sense, impossible. For the real principle of self-ownership implies that people are not used in various ways against their will. The capitalist system, however, has undermined this principle, and ironically, has used the term "self-ownership" as the "logical" basis for doing so. Under capitalism, as will be seen in section B.4, most people are usually left in a situation where their best option is to allow themselves to be used in just those ways that are logically incompatible with genuine self-ownership.
For these reasons, anarchists agree with Rousseau when he states:
"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" ["Discourse on Inequality," The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 84]
Only libertarian socialism can continue to affirm self-ownership whilst building the conditions that guarantee it. Only by abolishing private property can there be access to the means of life for all, so making self-ownership a reality by universalising self-management in all aspects of life.
Before discussing the anti-libertarian aspects of capitalism, it will be necessary to define "private property" as distinct from "personal possessions" and show in more detail why the former requires state protection and is exploitative.
Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as
state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used
to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things
that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a
toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property
or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that
one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a
profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living
as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one
employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is
property.
While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very
useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend
to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a
transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very
different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:
As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes private
ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes
capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you
use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the
people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be
collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be
considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession." [The
ABC of Anarchism, p. 68] (For more on the anarchist theory of property,
see P.-J. Proudhon, What is Property?. William Godwin, in Enquiry
Concerning Political Justice, makes the same point concerning the
difference between property and possession -- which indicates its
central place in anarchist thought). Proudhon graphically illustrated the
distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a
proprietor!
The difference between property and possession can be seen from the
types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of a
capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace determine
how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This leads to an
almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, "the term
'totalitarian' is quite accurate. There is no human institution that
approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business corporation. I mean,
power is completely top-down. You can be inside it somewhere and
you take orders from above and hand 'em down. Ultimately, it's in
the hands of owners and investors."
In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only
title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who work
within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and equality
within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private property and
capitalism flows naturally from its basic principles and ideas.
Kropotkin argued that the state was "the instrument for establishing
monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 286] While some of these monopolies
are obvious (such as tariffs, state granted market monopolies
and so on - see section F.8 on the state's role in developing capitalism)
most are "behind the scenes" and work to ensure that capitalist domination
does not need extensive force to maintain.
The state therefore maintains various kinds of "class monopolies" (to
use Tucker's phrase) to ensure that workers do not receive their "natural
wage," the full product of their labour. There are four major kinds of
property, or exploitative monopolies, that the state protects:
By enforcing these forms of property, capitalism ensures that the
objective conditions within the economy favour the capitalist, with
the worker free only to accept oppressive and exploitative contracts within
which they forfeit their autonomy and promise obedience or face misery and
poverty. Due to these "initiations of force" conducted previously to any
specific contract being signed, capitalists enrich themselves at the expense
of us as well as making a mockery of free agreement (see section
B.4). Of
course, despite the supposedly subtle role of such "objective" pressures
in controlling the working class, working class resistance has been such
that capital has never been able to dispense with the powers of the state,
both direct and indirect. When "objective" means of control fail, the
capitalists will always turn to the use of state repression to restore the
"natural" order.
To indicate the importance of these state backed monopolies, we shall
sketch their impact.
The credit monopoly, by which the state controls who can and cannot
loan money, reduces the ability of working class people to create their
own alternatives to capitalism. By charging high amounts of interest
on loans (which is only possible because competition is restricted)
few people can afford to create co-operatives or one-person firms.
In addition, having to repay loans at high interest to capitalist banks
ensures that co-operatives often have to undermine their own principles
by having to employ wage labour to make ends meet (see section
J.5.11).
It is unsurprising, therefore, that the very successful Mondragon
co-operatives in the Basque Country created their own credit union
which is largely responsible for the experiments success.
Just as increasing wages is an important struggle within capitalism,
so is the question of credit. Proudhon and his followers supported the
idea of a People's Bank. If the working class could take over and
control increasing amounts of money it could undercut capitalist power
while building its own alternative social order (for money is ultimately
the means of buying labour power, and so authority over the labourer -
which is the key to surplus value production). Proudhon hoped that by
credit being reduced to cost (namely administration charges) workers
would be able to buy the means of production they needed. While most
anarchists would argue that increased working class access to credit
would no more bring down capitalism than increased wages, all
anarchists recognise how more credit, like more wages, and how the
struggle for credit, like the struggle for wages, might play a useful
role in the development of the power of the working class within
capitalism. Obvious cases that spring to mind are those where money
has been used by workers to finance their struggles against capital,
from strike funds and weapons to the periodical avoidance of work
made possible by sufficiently high money income. Increased access
to cheap credit would give working class people slightly more
options than selling their liberty or facing misery (just as
increased wages and unemployment benefit also gives us more
options).
Therefore, the credit monopoly reduces competition to capitalism from
co-operatives (which are generally more productive than capitalist firms)
while at the same time forcing down wages for all workers as the demand
for labour is lower than it would otherwise be. This, in turn, allows
capitalists to use the fear of the sack to extract higher levels of
surplus value from employees, so consolidating capitalist power (within
and outwith the workplace) and expansion (increasing set-up costs and
so creating oligarchic markets dominated by a few firms). In addition,
high interest rates transfer income directly from producers to banks.
Credit and money are both used as weapons in the class struggle. This
is why, again and again, we see the ruling class call for centralised
banking and use state action (from the direct regulation of money
itself to the management of its flows) in the face of repeated
threats to the nature (and role) of money within capitalism.
So the credit monopoly, by artificially restricting the option to work
for ourselves, ensures we work for a boss.
The land monopoly consists of enforcement by government of land titles
which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. In addition,
it also includes making the squatting of abandoned housing and other forms
of property illegal. This leads to ground-rent, by which landlords get
payment for letting others use the land they own but do not actually
cultivate. While this monopoly is less important in a modern capitalist
society (as few people know how to farm) it did, however, play an important
role in creating capitalism (also see section
F.8.3). Economist William
Lazonick summaries this process:
By being able to "legally" bar people from "their" property, the landlord
class used the land monopoly to ensure the creation of a class of people
with nothing to sell but their labour (i.e. liberty). Land was taken from
those who traditionally used it, violating common rights, and it was used
by the landlord to produce for their own profit (more recently, a similar
process has been going on in the Third World as well). Personal occupancy
was replaced by landlordism and agricultural wage slavery, and so "the
Enclosure Acts. . . reduced the agricultural population to misery,
placed them at the mercy of the landowners, and forced a great number of
them to migrate to the towns where, as proletarians, they were delivered
to the mercy of the middle-class manufacturers." [Peter Kropotkin, The
Great French Revolution, p. 117]
This was the land monopoly in action (also see section
F.8.3) and from it
sprang the tools and equipment monopoly as domestic industry could not
survive in the face of industrial capitalism. The tools and equipment
monopoly is based upon the capitalist denying workers access to their
capital unless the worker pays tribute to the owner for using it. While
capital is "simply stored-up labour which has already received its pay
in full" and so "the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and
nothing more" (to use Tucker's words), due to legal privilege the capitalist
is in a position to charge a "fee" for its use. This is because, with the
working class legally barred from both the land and available capital (the
means of life), members of that class have little option but to agree to wage
contracts which let capitalists extract a "fee" for the use of their
equipment (see section B.3.3).
While the initial capital for investing in industry came from wealth
plundered from overseas or from the proceeds of feudalist and landlordist
exploitation, the fact of state protection of property ensured that the
manufacturer was able to exact usury from labour. The "fee" charged to
workers was partly reinvested into capital, which reduced the prices of
goods, ruining domestic industry. In addition, investment also increased
the set-up costs of potential competitors, which continued the dispossession
of the working class from the means of production as these "natural" barriers
to entry into markets ensured few members of that class had the necessary
funds to create co-operative workplaces of appropriate size. So while the
land monopoly was essential to create capitalism, the "tools and equipment"
monopoly that sprang from it soon became the mainspring of the system.
In this way usury became self-perpetuating, with apparently "free exchanges"
being the means by which capitalist domination survives. In other words,
"past initiations of force" combined with the current state protection of
property ensure that capitalist domination of society continues with only
the use of "defensive" force (i.e. violence used to protect the power of
property owners against unions, strikes, occupations, etc.). The "fees"
extracted from previous generations of workers has ensured that the
current one is in no position to re-unite itself with the means of life
by "free competition" (in other words, the paying of usury ensures that
usury continues). Needless to say, the surplus produced by this generation
will be used to increase the capital stock and so ensure the dispossession
of future generations and so usury becomes self-perpetuating. And, of course,
state protection of "property" against "theft" by working people ensures
that property remains theft and the real thieves keep their plunder.
As far as the "ideas" monopoly is concerned, this has been used to enrich
capitalist corporations at the expense of the general public and the
inventor. As David Noble points out, the "inventor, the original focus
of the patent system, tended to increasingly to 'abandon' his patent
in exchange for corporate security; he either sold or licensed his patent
rights to industrial corporations or assigned them to the company of which
he became an employee, bartering his genius for a salary. In addition, by
means of patent control gained through purchase, consolidation, patent pools,
and cross-licensing agreements, as well as by regulated patent production
through systematic industrial research, the corporations steadily expanded
their 'monopoly of monopolies.'" As well as this, corporations used "patents
to circumvent anti-trust laws." This reaping of monopoly profits at the
expense of the customer made such "tremendous strides" between 1900 and 1929
and "were of such proportions as to render subsequent judicial and legislative
effects to check corporate monopoly through patent control too little too
late." [American By Design, p. 87, 84 and 88]
By creating "legal" monopolies and reaping the excess profits these create,
capitalists not only enriched themselves at the expense of others, they
also ensured their dominance in the market. Some of the excess profits reaped
due to the legal monopolies where invested back into the company, securing
advantages for the company by creating various barriers to potential
competitors.
Moreover, the ruling class, by means of the state, is continually trying
to develop new forms of private property by creating artificial scarcities
and monopolies, e.g. by requiring expensive licenses to engage in particular
types of activities, such as broadcasting. In the "Information Age,"
usury (use fees) from intellectual property are becoming a much more
important source of income for elites, as reflected in the attention paid
to strengthening mechanisms for enforcing copyright in the recent GATT
agreements, or in US pressure on foreign countries (like China) to
respect copyright laws, and so on.
In other words, capitalists desire to restrict competition in the "free
market" by ensuring that the law reflects and protects their interests,
namely their "property rights." By this process they ensure that
co-operative tendencies within society are crushed by state-supported
"market forces." As Noam Chomsky puts it, modern capitalism is "state
protection and public subsidy for the rich, market discipline for the
poor." ["Rollback, Part I", Z Magazine] Self-proclaimed defenders of
"free market" capitalism are usually nothing of the kind, while the few
who actually support it only object to the "public subsidy" aspect of
modern capitalism and happily support state protection for property
rights. (For more on capitalism as based on state-protected monopolies,
see Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One).
All these monopolies seek to enrich the capitalist (and increase their
capital stock) at the expense of working people, to restrict their ability
to undermine the ruling elites power and wealth. All aim to ensure that any
option we have to work for ourselves (either individually or collectively)
is restricted by tilting the playing field against us, making sure that we
have little option but to sell our labour on the "free market" and be
exploited. In other words, the various monopolies make sure that "natural"
barriers to entry (see section C.4) are created, leaving the heights of
the economy in the control of big business while alternatives to capitalism
are marginalised at its fringes.
So it is these kinds of property and the authoritarian social relationships
that they create which the state exists to protect. It should be noted that
converting private to state ownership (i.e. nationalisation) does not
fundamentally change the nature of property relationships; it just
removes private capitalists and replaces them with bureaucrats.
To answer this question, consider the monopoly of productive "tools and
equipment." This monopoly, obtained by the class of industrial capitalists,
allows this class in effect to charge workers a "fee" for the privilege
of using the monopolised tools and equipment.
This occurs because property, in Proudhon words, "excommunicates" the
working class. The state enforces property rights in land, workplaces
and so on, meaning that the owner can bar others from using them and
enforce their rules on those they do let use "their" property. So the
boss "gives you a job: that is permission to work in the factory or
mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself.
And for that permission you help to support him for . . .as long as
you work for him." [Alexander Berkman, What is Communist Anarchism?,
p. 11]
Therefore, due to the dispossession of the vast majority of the population
from the means of life, capitalists are in an ideal position to charge
a "use-fee" for the capital they own, but neither produced nor use. Having
little option, workers agree to contracts within which they forfeit their
autonomy during work and the product of that work. This results in capitalists
having access to a "commodity" (labour) that can potentially produce more
value than it gets paid for in wages. During working hours, the owner can
dictate (within certain limits determined by worker resistance and solidarity
as well as objective conditions, such as the level of unemployment within an
industry or country) the level, duration and intensity of work, and so the
amount of output (which the owner has sole rights over even though they did
not produce it). Thus the "fee" (or "surplus value") is created by owners
paying workers less than the full value added by their labour to the products
or services they create for the firm. The capitalist's profit is thus the
difference between this "surplus value," created by and appropriated from
labour, minus the firm's overhead and cost of raw materials (See also section
C.2, "Where do profits come from?").
So property is exploitative because it allows a surplus to be monopolised by
the owners. Property creates hierarchical relationships within the workplace
(the "tools and equipment monopoly" might better be called the "power
monopoly") and as in any hierarchical system, those with the power use it
to protect and further their own interests at the expense of others. Within
the workplace there is resistance by workers to this oppression and
exploitation, which the "hierarchical. . . relations of the capitalist
enterprise are designed to resolve this conflict in favour of the
representatives of capital..." [William Lazonick, Op. Cit., p. 184]
Needless to say, the state is always on hand to protect the rights of property
and management against the actions of the dispossessed. When it boils down
to it, it is the existence of the state as protector of the "power monopoly"
that allows it to exist at all.
So, capitalists are able to appropriate this surplus value from workers
solely because they own the means of production, not because they earn it
by doing productive work themselves. Of course some capitalists may also
contribute to production, in which case they are in fairness entitled to
the amount of value added to the firm's output by their own labour; but
owners typically pay themselves much more than this, and are able to
do so because the state guarantees them that right as property owners
(which is unsurprising, as they alone have knowledge of the firms inputs
and outputs and, like all people in unaccountable positions, abuse that
power -- which is partly why anarchists support direct democracy as the
essential counterpart of free agreement, for no one in power can be trusted
not to prefer their own interests over those subject to their decisions).
And of course many capitalists hire managers to run their businesses for
them, thus collecting income for doing nothing except owning.
Capitalists' profits, then, are a form of state-supported exploitation.
This is equally true of the interest collected by bankers and rents
collected by landlords. Without some form of state, these forms of
exploitation would be impossible, as the monopolies on which they depend
could not be maintained. For instance, in the absence of state troops
and police, workers would simply take over and operate factories for
themselves, thus preventing capitalists from appropriating an unjust
share of the surplus they create.
No. Even though a few supporters of capitalism recognise that private
property, particularly in land, was created by the use of force, most
maintain that private property is just. One common defence of private
property is found in the work of Robert Nozick (a supporter of "free
market" capitalism). For Nozick, the use of force makes acquisition
illegitimate and so any current title to the property is illegitimate
(in other words, theft and trading in stolen goods does not make
ownership of these goods legal). So, if the initial acquisition of
land was illegitimate then all current titles are also illegitimate.
And since private ownership of land is the basis of capitalism,
capitalism itself would be rendered illegal.
To get round this problem, Nozick utilises the work of Locke ("The Lockean
Proviso") which can be summarised as:
Take for example two individuals who share land in common. Nozick
allows for one individual to claim the land as their own as long
as the "process normally giving rise to a permanent bequeathable property
right in a previously unowned thing will not do so if the position
of others no longer at liberty to use the thing is therefore worsened."
[Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 178]
But, if one person appropriated the land then the other cannot live off the
remaining land. However, if the new land owner offers the other a wage to
work their land and this exceeds what the new wage slave originally produced,
then this meets the "Lockean Proviso." Of course, the new wage slave has no
option but to work for another, but this is irrelevant for the Lockean
Proviso.
Interestingly, for a ideology that calls itself "libertarian" Nozick
theory defines "worse off" in terms purely of material welfare, compared
to the conditions that existed within the society based upon common use.
In other words, being "worse off" in terms of liberty (i.e. self-ownership
or self-government) is irrelevant for Nozick, a very telling position
to take.
Nozick claims to place emphasis on self-ownership in his ideology because
we are separate individuals, each with our own life to lead. It is strange,
therefore, to see that Nozick does not emphasise people's ability to act
on their own conception of themselves in his account of appropriation.
Indeed, there is no objection to an appropriation that puts someone in an
unnecessary and undesirable position of subordination and dependence on
the will of others.
Notice that the fact that individuals are now subject to the decisions of
other individuals is not considered by Nozick in assessing the fairness
of the appropriation. The fact that the creation of private property
results in the denial of important freedoms for wage slaves (namely,
the wage slave has no say over the status of the land they had been
utilising and no say over how their labour is used). Before the creation
of private property, all managed their own work, had self-government in
all aspects of their lives. After the appropriation, the new wage slave
has no such liberty and indeed must accept the conditions of employment
within which they relinquish control over how they spend much of their
time.
Considering Nozick's many claims in favour of self-ownership and why
it is important, you would think that the autonomy of the newly
dispossessed wage slaves would be important to him. However, no such
concern is to be found - the autonomy of wage slaves is treated as if
it were irrelevant. Nozick claims that a concern for people's freedom to
lead their own lives underlies his theory of unrestricted property-rights,
but, this apparently does not apply to wage slaves. His justification
for the creation of private property treats only the autonomy of the
land owner as relevant. However, as Proudhon rightly argues:
Under capitalism people are claimed to own themselves, but this is purely
formal as most people do not have independent access to resources.
And as they have to use other peoples' resources, they become under the
control of those who own the resources. In other words, private property
reduces the autonomy of the majority of the population, and creates a
regime of authority which has many similarities to enslavement. As John
Stuart Mill put it:
Capitalism, even though claiming formal self-ownership, in fact not only
restricts the self-determination of working class people, it also makes
them a resource for others. Those who enter the market after others
have appropriated all the available property are limited to charity or
working for others. The latter, as we discuss in
section C, results in
exploitation as the worker's labour is used to enrich others. Working
people are compelled to co-operate with the current scheme of property
and are forced to benefit others. This means that self-determination
requires resources as well as rights over one's physical and mental
being. Concern for self-determination (i.e. meaningful self-ownership)
leads us to common property plus workers' control of production and so
some form of libertarian socialism - not private property and
capitalism.
And, of course, the appropriation of the land requires a state to
defend it against the dispossessed as well as continuous interference in
people's lives. Left to their own devices, people would freely use the
resources around them which they considered unjustly appropriated by others
and it is only continuous state intervention that prevents then from violating
Nozick's principles of justice (to use Nozick's own terminology, the "Lockean
Proviso" is a patterned theory, his claims otherwise not withstanding).
In addition, we should note that private ownership by one person presupposes
non-ownership by others ("we who belong to the proletaire class, property
excommunicates us!" [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 105]) and so the "free market" restricts as well as creates
liberties just as any other economic system. Hence the claim that capitalism
constitutes "economic liberty" is obviously false. In fact, it is based
upon denying liberty for the vast majority during work hours (as well as
having serious impacts on liberty outwith work hours due to the effects
of concentrations of wealth upon society).
Perhaps Nozick can claim that the increased material benefits of private
property makes the acquisition justified. However, it seems strange that
a theory supporting "liberty" should consider well off slaves to be better
than poor free men and women. As Nozick claims that the wage slaves consent
is not required for the initial acquisition, so perhaps he can claim that
the gain in material welfare outweighs the loss of autonomy and so allows
the initial act as an act of paternalism. But as Nozick opposes paternalism
when it restricts private property rights he can hardly invoke it when
it is required to generate these rights. And if we exclude paternalism
and emphasise autonomy (as Nozick claims he does elsewhere in his theory),
then justifying the initial creation of private property becomes much more
difficult, if not impossible.
And if each owner's title to their property includes the historical
shadow of the Lockean Proviso on appropriation, then such titles are
invalid. Any title people have over unequal resources will be qualified
by the facts that "property is theft" and that "property is despotism."
The claim that private property is economic liberty is obviously untrue,
as is the claim that private property can be justified in terms of
anything except "might is right."
For more anarchist analysis on private property and why it cannot be
justified (be it by occupancy, labour, natural right, or whatever)
consult Proudhon's classic work What is Property?.
“That’s a big honor,” commented Larry. “The passenger, while they were high up, threw something and hit the pilot, the seaplane went out of control, the man jumped—and then cut free his parachute, cut the sack holding the emeralds, and hid in the swamp.” “I see a light,” Sandy said as the airplane swung far out over the dark water. “A green light, but the hydroplane wouldn’t carry lights.” "No, no; it's a good deal, but it ain't too much. Not that it could be more, very well," he added, and he glanced furtively at the woman within, who had stretched out on the lounge with her face to the wall. Mrs. Taylor was fanning her. But though the 21st of January was to be the day of the grand attack on the Ministry, the battle was not deferred till then. Every day was a field-day, and the sinking Minister was dogged step by step, his influence weakened by repeated divisions, and his strength worn out by the display of the inevitable approach of the catastrophe. The first decided defeat that he suffered was in the election of the Chairman of Committees. The Ministerial candidate, Giles Earle, was thrown out by a majority of two hundred and forty-two to two hundred and thirty-eight, and the Opposition candidate, Dr. Lee, was hailed by a shout that rent the House. Other close divisions followed. The fall of Walpole was now certain, and he would have consulted both his dignity and comfort in resigning at once. This was the earnest advice of his friends, but he had been too long accustomed to power to yield willingly. He was oppressed with a sense of his defeats, and the insolence of enemies whom he had so long calmly looked down upon without fear. He was growing old and wanted repose, but he still clung convulsively to his authority, though he had ceased to enjoy it. "Should think they was bride and groom, if they wasn't so old." "March them right over to that shed there," said the Major, "and the Quartermaster will issue them muskets and equipments, which you can turn over again when you reach Chattanooga. Good-by. I hope you'll have a pleasant trip. Remember me to the boys of the old brigade and tell them I'll be with them before they start out for Atlanta." The train finally halted on a side-track in the outskirts of Chattanooga, under the gigantic shadow of Lookout Mountain, and in the midst of an ocean of turmoiling activity that made the eyes ache to look upon it, and awed every one, even Si and Shorty, with a sense of incomprehensible immensity. As far as they could see, in every direction, were camps, forts, intrenchments, flags, hordes of men, trains of wagons, herds of cattle, innumerable horses, countless mules, mountains of boxes, barrels and bales. Immediately around them was a wilderness of trains, with noisy locomotives and shouting men. Regiments returning from veteran furlough, or entirely new ones, were disembarking with loud cheering, which was answered from the camps on the hillsides. On the river front steamboats were whistling and clanging their bells. "Go out and git you a rebel for yourself, if you want to know about 'em," Shorty had snapped at the Orderly. "There's plenty more up there on the hill. It's full of 'em." "Drat 'em! durn 'em!" "He's dead," said Realf. Should you leave me too, O my faithless ladie!" The odds were generally on Reuben. It was felt that a certain unscrupulousness was necessary to the job, and in that Backfield had the advantage. "Young Realf wudn't hurt a fly," his champions had to acknowledge. Though the money was with Reuben, the sympathy was mostly with Realf, for the former's dealings had scarcely made him popular. He was a hard man to his customers, he never let them owe him for grain or roots or fodder; his farm-hands, when drunk, spoke of him as a monster, and a not very tender-hearted peasantry worked itself sentimental over his treatment of his children. Caro was frightened, horrified—she broke free, and scrambled to her feet. She nearly wept, and it was clear even to his muddled brain that her invitation had been merely the result of innocence more profound than that which had stimulated her shyness. Rough seaman though he was, he was touched, and managed to soothe her, for she was too bashful and frightened to be really indignant. They walked a few yards further along the path, then at her request turned back towards Odiam. Calverley reluctantly departed on his mission, cursing the interruption that prevented his enjoying the degradation of his rival, and the baron now inquired whether Holgrave had confessed himself his villein. HoME国家产免费一级毛卡片
ENTER NUMBET 0017 B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession?
"Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual
possession. . . But when this right of use . . . became active and
paramount - that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to
personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's
labour - then property changed its nature and this idea became complex."
[What is Property, pp. 395-6]
B.3.2 What kinds of property does the state protect?
(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of
capitalist banking;
(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of
industrial capitalism;
(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and
patent ("intellectual property") royalties.
"The reorganisation of agricultural land [the enclosure movement] . . .
inevitably undermined the viability of traditional peasant agriculture. . .
[it] created a sizeable labour force of disinherited peasants with only
tenuous attachments to the land. To earn a living, many of these peasants
turned to 'domestic industry' - the production of goods in their cottages
. . .It was the eighteenth century expansion of domestic industry. . . that
laid the basis for the British Industrial Revolution. The emergence of
labour-saving machine technology transformed. . . textile manufacture. . .
and the factory replaced the family home as the predominant site of
production." [Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy,
pp. 3-4]
B.3.3 Why is property exploitative?
B.3.4 Can private property be justified?
1. People own themselves.
2. The world is initially owned in common (or unowned in Nozick's
case.)
3. You can acquire absolute rights over a larger than average
share in the world, if you do not worsen the condition of
others.
4. Once people have appropriated private property, a free market in
capital and labour is morally required.
"if the liberty of man is sacred, it is equally sacred in all individuals;
that, if it needs property for its objective action, that is, for its
life, the appropriation of material is equally necessary for all . . .
Does it not follow that if one individual cannot prevent another . . .
from appropriating an amount of material equal to his own, no more can
he prevent individuals to come." [What is Property?, pp. 84-85]
"No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority
are so by force of property; they are still chained to a place, to an
occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred
by the accident of birth to both the enjoyments, and from the mental and
moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently
of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against
which mankind have hitherto struggles, the poor are not wrong in
believing." ["Chapters on Socialism", Principles of
Political Economy, pp. 377-8]
www.lusi7.com.cn
tzron.com.cn
www.fushe1.net.cn
rilin6.com.cn
www.majiu1.com.cn
canqi6.com.cn
www.zaile7.com.cn
malata.net.cn
www.19webfind.com.cn
6webfind.com.cn