💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › solidarity-federation-conditions-of-freedom.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:59:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Conditions of Freedom Author: Solidarity Federation Date: Summer 1998 Language: en Topics: Freedom, Direct Action Magazine Source: Retrieved on April 8, 2005 from https://web.archive.org/web/20050408024044/http://www.directa.force9.co.uk/archive/da7-features.htm Notes: Published in Direct Action #7 — Summer 1998.
Throughout history, people have fought and died for “freedom”, often
only to exchange one form of slavery and oppression for another.
Yet, freedom is a goal we continue to strive for. It is fundamental to
our very humanity. Its opposite, oppression, stunts and distorts human
nature and restrains, if not prevents, progress. That we don’t have a
society in which freedom is fully realised arises as much from confusion
as to exactly what freedom is, as from the effectiveness of repression.
There are two aspects to what we call “freedom”, a negative one and a
positive one — a “freedom from” and a “freedom for”. There is also the
nature of the individual or people seeking freedom. These factors are
mutually dependent. Because our history has been one of struggle against
tyranny, freedom is usually only conceived of in the negative sense,
namely the absence or minimising of such tyranny. However, “freedom
from” some restriction must be in order to achieve “freedom to do or to
be”. Freedom does not produce a vacuum.
It could be said that the degree to which one person interferes with
another’s activity is a measure of the amount of freedom someone has.
Political freedom, therefore, is viewed as people living how they
choose, unobstructed by others. However, because we live in society,
this must be qualified. If the well-being of everyone in society is to
be assured, then it is not acceptable that the psychopath, for example,
be “free” to exploit, use or bully others. Therefore, freedom is
value-laden, and entails responsibilities towards others. This implies
that the cultural values of the society as well as the nature of the
individual enter the equation.
Beyond a certain point, preventing people from doing what they would
choose is coercion, the deliberate interference by the powerful in the
activities of those within that power. In modern society, based on an
ideology of power, overt coercion limits people’s “freedom”. However,
imposing the will of the dominant does not merely depend on overt
coercion alone, for this would promote rebellion among the coerced.
Rather, compliance is sought through “legitimacy”, through inducing
people to believe that authority is necessary “for their own good”. Once
this is indoctrinated in people’s minds, they can contribute to their
own repression. In a capitalist society, where the privilege of the
ruling class is based upon the exploitation of labour, this is the
all-important factor for its continuation. People are made to believe
they are already free within the confines of a social necessity.
John Stuart Mill, in his famous work “On Liberty”, recognised that there
must exist an area of personal freedom which on no account must be
violated. Such violation restricts the development of the individual’s
natural faculties, which make it possible to conceive of and pursue the
ends which humans hold to be good and necessary for their well-being.
Those who justify such violation claim that legal restraints are
necessary due to the evil that is basic to human nature. This myth,
originally proposed by the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, upholds
the interests of the privileged. Such reactionary thinkers argue that,
if we are not to resort to “the law of the jungle”, we must be
controlled by the law of government. This becomes ironic considering the
slaughter that has been perpetrated by governments and how they preside
over a system that threatens all life on the planet. Furthermore, those
who govern are not ethically different to those who are governed. In
fact, due to their privileged position they are often more corrupt.
Libertarians do not advocate licence, that is, freedom at the expense of
others. This is a feature of today’s society, where the values are those
of robbery and domination, where getting the better of someone else is a
virtue, where the greatest liberty is limited to the fewest number.
Furthermore, such behaviour, as exhibited by our “betters”, is emulated
by the so-called “lower classes” through daily indoctrination by the
media and advertising.
Economic slavery has, during this century, given rise to the idea of
economic freedom. Freedom to possess bread is pointless if people lack
the economic freedom to buy it. This inability to obtain the necessities
of life by means other than those authorised by law has resulted in
widespread deprivation, poverty and insecurity among working class
people. It makes freedom under capitalist constraints an illusion and a
mockery, considering that capitalism produces commodities that many are
not free to obtain. Through a set of unfair arrangements and
relationships the ruling elite has been able to plan, impose, and
maintain this status quo.
This, however, is not to advocate a society of mediocrity, but one of
increasing diversity. What we have now is a society which threatens
people with deprivation and persecution, unless they submit to a
lifestyle that withers their capacities and the contribution which their
uniqueness as an individual could enable them to make, a society which
results in hidebound individuals, cramped and warped in their
relationships with each other. For human society to thrive, there must
be respect for one another’s rights and freedoms, based on equality,
which certainly isn’t the case in a society based upon privilege,
exploitation and domination. A society built around its people’s needs
would see greater experimentation in lifestyles. This concept is
sometimes called “permanent revolution”, an on-going, ever-developing
society in which people are not restricted by conformity in order to
survive. In such an open and free society, mutual respect would
naturally evolve, because there would be no privilege to be gained at
the expense of others.
Every plea we make for civil liberties and individual rights; every
protest against exploitation, humiliation and oppression; every
rebellion against the encroachments of authority, springs from this
evaluation of human beings. Libertarians have always stressed freedom to
create, freedom to achieve, freedom of self-determination, freedom to
participate in the decisions affecting our lives, freedom to add colour
and diversity to life.
So what is this condition we call freedom, this horizon which constantly
eludes us? Fundamentally it is the capacity to be your own master, to
determine your own destiny, to have your life and the decisions
affecting it firmly in your own hands. It is the right to be a person,
not an object or statistic or tool to be used or abused, discarded or
destroyed. It is the ability to be a rational creature, responding to
rational argument, exhibiting compassion, formulating conscious rational
purposes, and not simply responding to outside causes. It is the
facility to be a unique individual, yet with the ability to co-operate
for the mutual benefit of all, and not to be considered as a thing,
animal or wage slave incapable of such rational behaviour. For it is
this rationality which distinguishes us from other species.
We can think and behave in rational, social ways. We are responsible for
the choices we make, and can refer to knowledge and experience to
explain them. We can reach consensus with our fellows. As Michael
Bakunin once said, “No man is good enough to be another man’s master”.