IWW and right-libertarian/anarcho-capitalists/whatever

incidentally I was also following that exact same thread and I do think it makes for interesting conversation, but a single fact remains: the market itself is inherently coercive and thus incompatible with any sort of libertarian or anarchist society. How we should respond to their linking to us, I guess just hope for the best and that those attracted to 'libertarianism" can see the the flip side (in fact the true side) to what the what the market 'anarchists' have to offer.

I don't see why individuals could not be members. An unregulated market would probably lead to greater numbers of workers banding together to reduce the pool of available labor and therefore increase their value to the bosses. A true lack of government regulation in the labor field at this point would probably cause not too many backsteps for labor, as many of the things which were fought for years ago are now seen as rights by a clear majority of the working class. And those pesky secondary boycott injunctions would be a thing of the past, which would support more industrial organizing.

We're a union. People hold lots of different positions. It's certainly possible that someone might join and hold those views, just as it's possible that someone might join and be a Tory or vote Labour or be active in their Church, Mosque or whatever.

The positions of the union are however very clear - we want to seize the means of production and "establish a co-operative commonwealth"

What you're talking about is the abstract ahistorical market. There will of course be a market in a communist/anarchist society, but it will simply be the very real market were goods and services are distributed. It will not rely on the production and exchange of commodities, and this is the key about capitalism.

Labour is exchanged on the market, and it is hardly on mutual agreeable terms.

Just want to jump in here and mention Ethan Mitchell's pamplhet “Free Market Syndicalism: The Lengthy Tortoise,” which I don't agree with, but which covers some similar political ground to what you're discussing. I think Flint has read it too, and might have a more active opinion on it than I do.

Web Archive has the introduction, Section 1 and Section 4. Free Market Syndicalism It's a draft that I think went through some changes before the print edition, which is titled: "Free Market Syndicalism: The Lengthy Tortoise". I have an edition of it somewhere. In true market anarchist form... you have to buy it, but I think I got my copy free because I'd grabbed the draft version from google cache before it disappeared, and Ethan Mitchell had a hard drive crash.

Anyway, as to advocates of capitalism in the IWW, what part of "Abolish the Wage System" don't they understand?

anti:

that the market involves exchanges that are "mutually agreeable" does not rule out coercion. In fact it doesn't even rule out slavery. there have been cases historically of desperate people voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. it was better than starving to death so they benefitted by the exchange in that they didn't die.

also, consider an economy of cooperatives or self-employed artisans and farmers. It's likely that some will gain control over a resource that is particularly important to the community, such as a guild that gains control over the only grain mill in an agricultural society. they can use this control to extract a higher than average share of the social product. because they are using their market power to gain an unearned income, it is a form of exploitation even if no wage-labor is involved.

Just a note that potlach and clan ownership of some resources among the Tlingit did not preclude slavery.

Anyway regardless of whether a syndicalist workers cooperative "owned" the capital they employed and traded it in some kind of market which could gain them an advantage they could use to exploit other members of the community who didn't work at that cooperative; or whether there was a more reciprocal/less marketed oriented approach between workers councils and the community council in terms of distribution of goods and services...

I think the primary problem with many advocates of a free market being in the IWW is that the free market advocates see no problem with an employee-employer relationship, and see no problem with income inequality (or inequality in the ownership of capital). The IWW is specifically against an employee-employer relationship. Maybe some free market advocates want to see everyone to be their own independent artisan (or independent contractor), but really... that never made sense because our economies have always been more integrated and complicated by relationships to others than "freedom" that such rugged individualists claim. It is the social relationship between workrs and bosses, between the dispossessed and the owners, between the exploited and the exploiters that the IWW disagrees to. Which is why there is the all the fancy rhetoric about the workers and employing classes having nothing in common.

I do think to be ideological consist, free market advocates have to allow in their theory for workers to collectively bargain and form labor unions; just like free market advocates must also allow for the free migration of all labor.

But there is never going to be an actual "free market". Those who own the majority of capital don't want it as the state is needed to stop expropriation; and such a market isn't in the interests of those doing all the work.

edmonton:

no, participatory economy is an anti-market perspective. the idea is to get rid of the market. that's because a market system allows people to use bargaining power to gain advantage in exchanges. I don't know what you mean by "immeidate exchange." But in a participatory economy worker collectives gain no revenue from sale of their products. Their remuneration comes from the entire society, the entire social collective.

exchange in the most abstract sense can't be done away with. exchange exists if you don't make everything you consume. if there is social production and you produce things for others and others produce things for you, then you're exchanging your labor for their labor. exchange in this abstract sense need not be mediated by a market, which is a bargaining power system where people have unilateral, completely autonomous control over some means of production, and use that to secure an income through the bargaining power it gives them.

also, the existence of supply and demand does not presuppose the existence of the market. if worker production collectives propose to produce things, that is proposed supply. if communities request production of public goods or individuals want to use their entitlement to consume to request products, there is demand.

within a participatory economy there is a price system and it is based on supply and demand. but it isn't based on bargaining power in a market. to be effective, the price system has to be based on supply and demand in the sense that it has to take account of scarcity and of what people's priorities are, what is most important to them. if it doesn't it won't be effective for them.

the idea of a price system in a participatory economy is that it is intended to capture true social opportunity costs of producing things, and thus avoid waste or ineffeciency. true social opportunity costs are not captured by market-driven pricing systems. that's because in a market, prices fail to take account of externalities, and they reflect how much money people have. so people with no money don't get to affect prices with their "demand". thus if lots of high income people move into your neighbordhood you'll be priced out by rising rents. your "demand" has no effect.

and products that are made via pollution or are polluting products will be under-priced relative to social costs. and public goods that benefit people collectively will be under-priced and under-produced.

Okay, here is the difference: "market" implies the exchange of commodities, i.e. items produced to be bought and sold for a profit. In a communist or syndicalist or anarchist economy, things would be produced based on need. Sure things could be shipped and distributed inter- or intra-continentally, but decisions on what goes where and to whom would be made horizontally and democratically. Exchange of goods in this way is not mediated by a market and therefore would not be a market based economy. In fact, I would go as far to say that markets--inherently based on commodities and profit--are antithetical to any sort of true socialist economy as they take the distribution of goods out of the democratic control of the larger community. Furthermore, their existence puts artificial pressure on producers to produce the most at the lowest cost (even under worker control this can lead to 'auto-exploitation') and not only ignore the social nature of the economy, but remove the solidarity necessary to facilitate a socialist economy.

Yawn. We've been over this...the situations in which people sell themselves into slavery--wage slavery or chattel slavery--generally occur in the context of massive amounts of institutionalized, historical violence with the purpose of upholding the sort of inequality that would compel someone to do something that desperate in the first place!

Now, that is a fantastic observation! I'll do my best to play devil's advocate.

For one, it seems like this would create a great incentive for someone to build something socially useful like a grain mill in the first place...and not only that, it would provide an excellent incentive for others to build future grain mills if it were possible to do so.

Now, to be fair, stuff like a mine or a mill requires access to relatively scarce natural resources and areas and most right libertarians would see it as ok to extract exorbitant fees from one's neighbors just because one was the first to 'mix one's labor' with the area in question. Mutualists, however, tend to have a mix of community and private ownership built into their form of use/occupancy rights. For example, the workers in the mine or mill in question could be expected to pay a scarcity tax to the democratic community institution which mediates land access.

We should also take into account that the mine or mill workers collective probably didn't build the structures or construct and engineer the machinery...they would realistically depend on the entire community to access the resources (not just, as in mutualism, by going through the land-use assembly): building supplies must come from somewhere (they'd need someone to extend them credit), construction and engineering labor and expertise must come from somewhere (they'd need someone to extend them credit), they'd need to be housed and fed while not producing a product during the construction period (they'd need someone to extend them credit), they'd need insurance to protect their livelihoods in case something went wrong, let's say the whole thing burnt down (and not only because they chose to charge exorbitant rates to their neighbors...remember, no state to protect them)...again, they'd need some source that could centralize and mobilize large amounts of resources to provide them with credit and insurance and without the state to protect large centralizations of wealth under private individuals it would require the prospective mine or mill operators to go through (even assuming no mutualist land-use assembly) the relevant democratic institutions--let's say a commune assembly or regional federation of some sort.

We could also expect the larger community to form a consumer's coop of sorts in order to keep costs down...it would also make sense for them to negotiate exchange through the commune or regional federation.

So, I think it is clear that the mine or mill operators in a stateless society are required to go through at least one democratic community institution before they could realistically even consider the idea of developing their idea. As a result, we could expect prices to be set not simply by 'bargaining power' but by a complex negotiation between a variety of groups at a variety of levels. How anarchist!

Obviously we will have to deal with the pre-existence of mines and mills...but I imagine we could see the same sort of deal worked out between the communes/regional federations and the non-capitalist operators who would take over post-transition. If nothing else, we have to account for the "insurance" any production unit would probably expect to pay to the commune/regional federation: "if you use access to relatively scarce capital to exploit your neighbors, we'll begin to get the impression that you are one of those capitalists we've just finished dealing with and treat you in a similar fashion"...or less overtly--"you've got a very valuable piece of land there...it would be a shame if that sucker were to catch fire"!

Of course, it may in some cases be in the community's interest to allow certain operators to gain a higher income from relatively scarce, highly socially useful work (the mine example, for instance). This could be reflected in relatively preferential terms in the agreements between the mine workers collective and the commune/regional federation.

* * *

That is exactly why they support the IWW...they see it as the best way for workers under the existing statist system to combat state-generated inequalities in the field of bargaining power.

Let's just say that I'm critical of the separation between 'production for profit' and 'production for use' since production for profit doesn't happen if the good or service won't be used...in any large-scale economy what we are really talking about is 'production for exchange'. The question is the terms of the exchange and whether or not they are mutually agreeable. The focus on the commodity is what leads lefties to fixate on bizarre, impractical shit like the abolition of money or the elimination of value.

Assuming everyone's material needs are met...what the hell should the 'larger community' have to say about the exchanges made between the dildo manufacturer and its customers?

Auto-exploitation is a stupid term, first of all, since exploitation is a relational concept. Secondly, markets don't necessarily break down the social nature of the economy but in fact require long-term, trusting human relationships between individuals and groups in order to function smoothly. Hell, the drive for efficiency would actually compel workers to integrate disparate productive units into larger producers federations with a unity of interests.

i'm still pondering. very useful posts all the way down.

Certainly not...I've wasted large segments of my free time arguing about shit on leftist internet forums and I have never once seen anyone change their mind about anything for any reason. I've come to accept this stuff for the self-indulgent circle-jerk it actually is!

There are liable to be choke-points of all sorts in the economy where groups of workers, if they have unilateral control over some key resource, will use that to extract a greater than average share of the social product.

One of the ways that capitalism developed out of feudalism is that under the old guild system there was a constant struggle over which craft would be the dealers. That's because control over access to the market gave them power to extract a greater share of the revenue as income. This led to the development of merchant capitalism, where the merchants hired crafts people to work in their cottages making things for the merchant. This was the putting out system, which was an early form of capitalist industry.

Transportation is a choke point. Suppose that the public transit workers in New York City go on strike to secure a higher income. They could bring the city to a halt. Or a strike by port workers along the west coast or the east and gulf coasts. Again, they could hold the country ransom for a higher than average income. I realize that you're talking about coops in a market economy. But the point is the same: groups can secure dominant market share or control over key choke-points, and then use this higher bargaining power to gain a greater share.

Competition forces the firms to reinvest as much of their firm's income as possible to build up means of production and expand. Firms that are at a disadvantage could band together for political purposes to force a reduction or elimination of your proposed assets tax.

They could pool their savings and open a private bank and start collecting interest from cooperatives that are desperately searching funds to survive in competition. So then you have unearned capitalist income in the form of interest.

Let me get this straight (and correct me if I'm wrong), "extract[ing] a higher than average share of the social product" would "create a great incentive for someone to build something socially useful like a grain mill in the first place"? Are you really saying this? Perhaps this is where you and I fundamentally differ. I see the "great incentive" for grain mills being 1) not wanting yourself or your community to starve and 2) the general sense of responsibility and solidarity that will come to the fore in a post-capitalist society.

Who would levy, collect, and distribute your scarcity tax? I've always seen taxes as characteristic of the state and, as such, have assumed they will cease to exist in an anarchist society.

Yeah, but I'm not sure your whole notion of 'credit' is appropriate. It is only a matter of mobilizing resources thru these democratic communities institutions. To assume credit would come into play--with the requisite lending institutions - banks?--seems to create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and socially unproductive work.

If by 'mutually agreeable' you mean bringing the large scale distribution of goods under democratic control, I agree. But markets, and you seem to miss this, imply competition for where and how goods will be distributed. One of underlying understanding of a socialist economy is that, economically, co-operation is more effective that competition. I will get into this when I address your claim concerning auto-exploitation.

The larger community should have input on whether a manufacturer is producing socially beneficial products. In this case I would argue that, yes, dildos will be produced under a socialist economy. But if a factory under capitalism produced atomic weapons and for some bizarre reason the workers wanted to continue this post-capitalism, the larger community should be able to say shut this down, if you want to eat, you better start producing socially utile goods or services.

It is, but in this instance it is the relationship of a group of workers to a market. I'm quoting Aufheben on this one in that one danger of worker co-ops under capitalism (or I would argue under any form of market economy) is that “the law of value will re-impose itself on the activity of the workers,” i.e., the speedup and layoffs and redundancies and the firing or workers instead of the shortening of shifts will still exist. The same oppressive forces that 'the market' forced on capitalist firms, the market can and will do to co-operative firms that still exist in a market, i.e, competitive, economy.

Capitalism is based on markets, why doesn't anything remotely like this occur?

So would any economic form that seeks efficiency. Capitalist firms do this as would worker-run firms under democratic control.