Перевод "A series of private hierarchies does not equal anarchy"

Iain McKay, “A series of private hierarchies does not equal anarchy”, public translation into Russian from English More about this translation.

See also 255 similar translations

Translate into another language.


Join Translated.by to translate! If you already have a Translated.by account, please sign in.
If you do not want to register an account, you can sign in with OpenID.
Pages: ← previous Ctrl next next untranslated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A series of private hierarchies does not equal anarchy

Reading Locke was interesting as it reminded me of how illiberal classical liberalism is. Locke was aiming to secure bourgeois class power from both above (the monarchy) and below (the masses). His aim was to restrict state power to defender of property (and its related powers) while justifying private power. As he put it in one edition of his work:

“Sect. 2. To this purpose, I think it may not be amiss, to set down what I take to be political power; that the power of a MAGISTRATE over a subject may be distinguished from that of a FATHER over his children, a MASTER over his servant, a HUSBAND over his wife, and a LORD over his slave. All which distinct powers happening sometimes together in the same man, if he be considered under these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers one from wealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley.” (Two Treatises of Government Book II)

The power “from wealth” he had no issue with as long as it was derived from “consent” (i.e., the property-less worker having to sell their labour, and so liberty, to the owner in return for wages) and so, unlike state power, did not include the power of life and death. As I wrote in my original draft:

‘The master-servant relationship was precisely what his theory of property in the person sought to justify for a servant’s labour (and liberty) being their property it could be alienated (sold). Yet, for Locke, both the owning class and working class benefited from the social contract. The former saw their property and power protected by a government of their own class from the whims of Monarchs proclaiming their divine right to rule. The latter saw the power of their masters reduced to a limited authority and so could not be killed or maimed on a whim by those who they had consented to obey. After all, “no rational Creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse”.

‘In both cases, consent is the means used. This is the hardest working concept in Locke’s ideology and is used to justify a multitude of liberty destroying social relationships.’

Pages: ← previous Ctrl next next untranslated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12