자유지상주의: 두 판 사이의 차이

내용 삭제됨 내용 추가됨
잔글 날짜 매개변수 수정
TedBot (토론 | 기여)
잔글 봇: 틀 이름 및 스타일 정리
56번째 줄:
임금 노동은 사회주의자들과 아나코 생디칼리스트들에게 임금 노예제로 간주된다.<ref name="English Working Class p. 599">{{Harvnb|Thompson|1966|p=599}}</ref><ref name="English Working Class p. 912">{{Harvnb|Thompson|1966|p=912}}</ref><ref name="Geoffrey Ostergaard p. 133">{{Harvnb|Ostergaard|1997|p=133}}.</ref><ref name="Shop Floor p. 37">{{Harvnb|Lazonick|1990|p=37}}.</ref> 결과적으로 “임금 노예”라는 용어는 종종 임금 노동에 대한 멸칭으로써 사용된다.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hallgrimsdottir|Benoit|2007}}; {{Harvnb|Roediger|2007a}}.<br>The term is not without its critics, as {{Harvnb|Roediger|2007b|p=247}}, notes: "[T]he challenge to loose connections of wage (or white) slavery to chattel slavery was led by [[Frederick Douglass]] and other Black, often fugitive, abolitionists. Their challenge was mercilessly concrete. Douglass, who tried out speeches in work places before giving them in halls, was far from unable to speak to or hear white workers, but he and [[William Wells Brown]] did challenge metaphors regarding white slavery sharply. They noted, for example, that their escapes from slavery had left job openings and wondered if any white workers wanted to take the jobs."</ref> 이런 시각의 옹호자들은 인간 주인 밑에서 노예가 되는가, 자본 밑에서 노예가 되는가의 차이만이 존재할 뿐이라고 간주한다.<ref name="books.google.co.uk">{{Harvnb|Fitzhugh|1857|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ECdb7EjiBnEC&pg=PR16 xvi]}}</ref> 노예제 변명론자인 조지 피츠휴(George Fitzhugh)는 노동자들이 “지속적으로 감염된 사회의 분위기를 흡입하고 그에 익숙해져서” 오직 임금 노동만을 받아 들이게 되었다고 주장했다.<ref name="books.google.co.uk"/>
 
노암 촘스키에 따르면 임금 노예제의 심리적 함의는 계몽시대로까지 거슬러 올라간다. 고전적 자유주의 사상가 [[빌헬름 폰 훔볼트]]는 1791년 그의 저서인 “On the Limits of State Action”에서 다음과 같이 주장한 적이 있다. “사람 자신의 자유로운 선택에서 비롯되지 않았거나 오직 지시와 지도의 결과일 뿐인 모든 행동은 그 자신의 천성에 들어맞지 않는 행위이다. 그는 진정한 인간적 에너지와 함께 그것을 수행하지 않았으며, 단지 기계적 정확성을 가지고 수행했을 뿐이다.” 그리고 노동자가 외부의 통제하에 일할 때 “우린 그가 한 일에 대하여 감탄할 수 있지만, [[로봇|그가 무엇인지에 대하여]] 경멸한다.”<ref>{{Harvnb|Chomsky|1993|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=DIpW10rWZFAC&pg=PA19 19]}}</ref> 상품으로서의 노동은 맑스주의자들이 임금 노동을 바라보는 시각이며<ref>{{Harvnb|Marx|1990|p=1006}}: "[L]abour-power, a commodity sold by the worker himself."</ref>, 자본주의에 대한 근본적인 반대를 제공하는 요소이다.<ref>Another one, of course, being the capitalists' theft from workers via [[surplus-value]].{{출처|날짜=2018-06-06}}</ref> 존 넬슨(John Nelson) 다음과 같이 지적한 적이 있다. “상품으로서의 노동력은 맑스가 자본주의의 임금 체계를 임금 노예제로 낙인찍은 이유를 확인하게 한다. 이것은 노동자의 조건을 노예상태로 전락시키기 위한 자본주의의 도구다.”<ref>{{cite저널 journal인용|last=Nelson|first=John O.|year=1995|title=That a Worker's Labour Cannot Be a Commodity|journal=[[Philosophy (journal)|Philosophy]]|volume=70|issue=272|page=158|jstor=3751199|ref=harv|doi=10.1017/s0031819100065359}}. This Marxist objection is what motivated Nelson's essay, which argues that labour is not, in fact, a commodity.</ref> 이런 반대는 맑스가 임금 노동이 자본주의의 기초라고 주장한 것에서 비롯된다. “임금에 의존해야 하는 계급이 존재하지 않고, 모든 개인이 서로를 자유로운 인간으로서 마주하게 될때, 그곳은 잉여 가치의 생산이 존재하지 않는 세계일 것이다. 잉여 가치의 생산이 없다면 자본주의적 생산 양식 또한 없을 것이며, 그러므로 자본도 없고 자본주의자도 없을 것이다!”<ref>{{Harvnb|Marx|1990|p=1005}}. Emphasis in the original.<br>See also p. 716: "[T]he capitalist produces [and reproduces] the worker as a wage-labourer. This incessant reproduction, this perpetuation of the worker, is the absolutely necessary condition for capitalist production."</ref>
 
==주요 흐름==
===좌파 자유지상주의===
좌파 자유지상주의는 개인의 자유와 함께 사회적 평등을 강조한다. 고전적인 용례로써 좌파 자유지상주의는 반권위주의적 좌익 정치와 동의어로 간주되며, 아나키즘과 자유지상주의적 마르크주의를 비롯한 여러 경향을 포함한 자유지상주의적 사회주의를 의미한다.<ref name="routledge-anarchism">Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). ''The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy''. p. 227.</ref><ref name="bookchinreader">Bookchin, Murray and Biehl, Janet (1997). ''The Murray Bookchin Reader''. Cassell: p. 170. {{ISBN|0-304-33873-7}}</ref> 좌파 자유지상주의는 힐렐 스타이너(Hillel Steiner ), 피터 발렌타인( Peter Vallentyne), 필립 판 파레이스(Philippe Van Parijs) 같은 학계의 철학자들을 가르키는 입장으로 언급되기도 하는데 이들은 자기소유를 천연 자원에 대한 평등주의적 관점과 혼합했다.<ref name="oxfordcompanion">[[Will Kymlicka|Kymlicka, Will]] (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In [[Ted Honderich|Honderich, Ted]]. ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy''. New York City: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 516. {{ISBN|978-0199264797}}. "'Left-libertarianism' is a new term for an old conception of justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. However, according to left-libertarians the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property. Historic proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, and Henry George. Recent exponents include Philippe Van Parijs and Hillel Steiner."</ref>
 
좌파 자유지상주의자들은 동산(personal property)에 대하여 존중하는 한편, 천연 자원에 노동력을 혼합하면 완전한 권리를 얻게 된다는 사유재산(private property)의 개념에 회의적이거나 전면적으로 반대한다.<ref name="socialhistory">Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilbur R. ''The social history of crime and punishment in America''. London: Sage Publications. p. 1007. {{ISBN|1412988764}}. "Left-libertarians disagree with right-libertarians with respect to property rights, arguing instead that individuals have no inherent right to natural resources. Namely, these resources must be treated as collective property that is made available on an egalitarian basis".</ref><ref name="rhteol">{{cite백과사전 encyclopedia인용|year=2008|title=Left libertarianism|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism|publisher=[[SAGE Publications|SAGE]]; [[Cato Institute]]|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC|editor-last=Hamowy|editor-first=Ronald|editor-link=Ronald Hamowy|pages=288–289|doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n174|isbn=978-1-4129-6580-4|lccn=2008009151|oclc=750831024|quote=Left libertarians regard each of us as full self-owners. However, they differ from what we generally understand by the term ''libertarian'' in denying the right to private property. We own ourselves, but we do not own nature, at least not as individuals. Left libertarians embrace the view that all natural resources, land, oil, gold, trees, and so on should be held collectively. To the extent that individuals make use of these commonly owned goods, they must do so only with the permission of society, a permission granted only under the proviso that a certain payment for their use be made to society at large.|last1=Narveson|first1=Jan|last2=Trenchard|first2=David|authorlink1=Jan Narveson}}</ref> 그리고 천연 자원(토지, 기름, 금광, 초목)이 평등주의적인 형태로 누구도 소유해선 안되거나 공유되어 한다고 주장한다. 사유재산권을 지지하는 좌파 자유지상주의자들은 지역 사회에 보상을 제공한다는 제약아래 그런 입장을 취한다.<ref name="rhteol"/> 많은 좌파 자유지상주의자들은 공산주의 학파에 속하며, 화폐를 노동 교환권이나 분권화 계획으로 대체하고자 한다.
 
한편 [[프루동]]의 상호주의와 사무엘 에드워드 콘킨 III(Samuel Edward Konkin III)의 아고리즘(agorism)을 포함한 좌익 시장 아나키즘은 좌파의 관심사를 사회주의 자유시장의 패러다임 안에서 해결하길 원한다.<ref name="routledge-anarchism"/>
===우파 자유지상주의===
우파 자유지상주의는 소극적 권리와 자연법 등을 강조하는 정치 철학이며 현대 복지국가의 주요한 반전 형태이다.<ref>{{Cite서적 book인용|title=Political Ideologies|last=Baradat|first=Leon P.|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317345558|location=|pages=}}</ref> 우파 자유지상주의자들은 사유재산권을 강하게 지지하며 천연자원이 시장을 통해 분배되어야 한다는 관점을 강하게 옹호한다.<ref>Kymlicka, Will (2005) "libertarianism, left-". In Honderich, Ted. ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy: New Edition''. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 516. {{ISBN|978-0199264797}}. "Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land."</ref> 이런 입장은 천연 자원이 평등주의적인 형태로 누구도 소유해선 안되거나 공유되어야 한다고 주장하는 좌파 자유지상주의와는 대조를 이룬다. 우파 자유지상주의는 아나코 캐피탈리즘, 자유방임, 미나키즘을 포함한다.<ref group="주석">* Marshall, Peter (2008). ''[[Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism]]''. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces ''laissez-faire'' liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".
* Goodway, David (2006). ''[[Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward]]''. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&dq=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian&hl=en&ei=YRWYTNmFNcL98Abz7N3sDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=anarcho-capitalism%20right%20libertarian&f=false p. 4]. {{ISBN|1846310253}}, {{ISBN|978-1846310256}}. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing ''laissez-faire'' philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
* Newman, Saul (2010). ''The Politics of Postanarchism'', Edinburgh University Press. [https://books.google.com/books?id=SiqBiViUsOkC&pg=PA43&dq=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian&hl=en&ei=TxeYTKOLFYH-8Aaa77WlAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=anarcho-capitalism%20right%20libertarian&f=false p. 43]. {{ISBN|0748634959}}, {{ISBN|978-0748634958}}. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a ''laissez-faire'' 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".</ref>
82번째 줄:
 
==주석==
{{reflist각주|2|group=주석}}
 
== 각주 ==