Hayenmill on syndicalism

[IcarusAngel]

Hayenmill says he is familiar with syndicalism but is critical of it. He has read the philosophies thoroughly, specifically critics' interpretations of the philosophies, and has agreed that they are problematic and flawed from an economics' perspective. He is specifically critical of the later syndicalists and libertarian-socialists, such as Chomsky and Russell. He will now present their flaws and why "left Libertarianism" is better.

Let's get this party started.

[Havet]

I have no quarrel with syndicalism. I just think some of their actions are pointless, and that many have colluded with the state in order to protect their interests at the expense of the majority of the population, therefore entering the "ruling class" border.

[IcarusAngel]

If you don't dislike syndicalism why would support a completely different ("Libertarian Left") philosophy that advocates the private ownership of the means of production rather than functioning communities and cooperatives.

Syndicalists don't "work for the government." They recognize that conditions CAN improve, which is a historical fact. Slavery got better. Furthermore, the public institutions, like the govt, the police, anything that is public, can serve better the needs of the people instead of serving the corporations.

When the govt. regulates the corporations they are serving the needs of the people. That's how we got shorter work weeks, better pay, etc. Not only was this better for the workers, it was better for the system overall, but if it made the system less productive it would still be justified in that freedom is better than slavery.

When the govt helps the corporations, standards were generally worse for workers, and government gets larger and more burdensome because the influence the corporations have work against the needs of the public. The evidence for this is overwhelming. The media for example has become free to promulgate corporate propaganda. The market has become coercive and limited in choices due to capitalist "considation" where standards often are not improved upon. The market caters to the majority of people willing to spend their money on crap rather than on the needs of the people. etc.

So you don't have much of a point there considering that capital is a government, as are land owners, whereas worker run cooperatives are not the same thing as government.

Some of the problems with your ideology:

Failure to note that forcing someone to work through 'markets' is far more coercive than forcing someone to take a certain job in a community. First of all, in the community, he is free to not work at all, he just won't get more goods, whereas in the 'market' he is forced to work under threat of starvation. Humans can do better than this, and even cooperatives that would allow someone to starve if he didn't do any work would be freer than markets, which are hierarchical and coercive. For example, he could just go join another cooperative, or even use the land himself to feed hismelf, because it's understood that there should be some 'basic human rights' such as the right to live. Or he could even split the commune into two communes provided he has enough support for his ideas. All things which are not possible in "static" capitalist property rights. (I can ellaborate more on why cooperatives and syndicalist communities are freer).

The right to live and the right to be taken care of is more 'human' than the right to property.

No protective measures to fight against bosses, hierarchies, and so on.

Propagation of discredited economics, such as Misean economics. It obviously doesn't help society to believe in things that are pseudoscientific.

Those are just some of the errors a quick reading of "left Libertarianism" gives. Of course there are others.

[Havet]

If you don't dislike syndicalism why would support a completely different ("Libertarian Left") philosophy that advocates the private ownership of the means of production rather than functioning communities and cooperatives.

Actually they advocate "both" (i'm quite sure what they mean as private ownership of the MOP is different than what you mean), so long as both are not enforced upon people (ie: they can leave the community)


Syndicalists don't "work for the government." They recognize that conditions CAN improve, which is a historical fact. Slavery got better. Furthermore, the public institutions, like the govt, the police, anything that is public, can serve better the needs of the people instead of serving the corporations.

Nobody is arguing FOR corporations


When the govt. regulates the corporations they are serving the needs of the people. That's how we got shorter work weeks, better pay, etc. Not only was this better for the workers, it was better for the system overall, but if it made the system less productive it would still be justified in that freedom is better than slavery.

Who created the corporations?


When the govt helps the corporations, standards were generally worse for workers, and government gets larger and more burdensome because the influence the corporations have work against the needs of the public. The evidence for this is overwhelming. The media for example has become free to promulgate corporate propaganda. The market has become coercive and limited in choices due to capitalist "considation" where standards often are not improved upon. The market caters to the majority of people willing to spend their money on crap rather than on the needs of the people. etc.

Agreed


Some of the problems with your ideology:

Failure to note that forcing someone to work through 'markets' is far more coercive than forcing someone to take a certain job in a community. First of all, in the community, he is free to not work at all, he just won't get more goods, whereas in the 'market' he is forced to work under threat of starvation. Humans can do better than this, and even cooperatives that would allow someone to starve if he didn't do any work would be freer than markets, which are hierarchical and coercive. For example, he could just go join another cooperative, or even use the land himself to feed hismelf, because it's understood that there should be some 'basic human rights' such as the right to live. Or he could even split the commune into two communes provided he has enough support for his ideas. All things which are not possible in "static" capitalist property rights. (I can ellaborate more on why cooperatives and syndicalist communities are freer).

Nobody is forcing you to be in a community where trade exists. You can leave. Just as nobody would be forcing someone to stay in a cooperative/commune community.


The right to live and the right to be taken care of is more 'human' than the right to property.

The right to the products of one's labor (property) necessarily leads to a better life and healthcare.


No protective measures to fight against bosses, hierarchies, and so on.

No need to. if you don't like it, move to your cooperative community. Simple.

Anyway, what you're implying (that free trade tends toward tyranny) has been debunked over (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale) and over (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560065&postcount=71) again.


Propagation of discredited economics, such as Misean economics. It obviously doesn't help society to believe in things that are pseudoscientific.

You'll have to speak to Olaf about that; I dont have much knowledge on misean economics, which is I don't base my arguments on them.

[IcarusAngel]

The right to the products of one's labor (property) necessarily leads to a better life and healthcare.

Proof of this.


No need to. if you don't like it, move to your cooperative community. Simple.

But you're claiming that you can own property merely because you found it or 'earned' it through a market system, which means a government had to already be in place for you to get such property which means your property was derived from government.

Not everybody agrees with this and there is no way you could ever show that a product was truly yours. What you're saying violates basic common sense.


Anyway, what you're implying (that free trade tends toward tyranny) has been debunked over (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale) and over (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560065&postcount=71) again.

Ridiculous. Free-markets have always created unequal conditions and has been proven in both industrialized countries and in third world countries, where the markets have been even free.


You'll have to speak to Olaf about that; I dont have much knowledge on misean economics, which is I don't base my arguments on them.

You base your ideas on people who got their ideas from Misean economics, such as that you can only own something if:

1. You created it with tools that you produced without 'coercion.'

or 2. That you earned them through 'free-market trade.'

But you could never show an item you produced contains solely your own labor. What ideas were you using when you working on something? Science/engineering is a collective endeavor. What is the history of the tools you were using. You mean to tell me that they were always earned in a "market" that Miseans define as being free-market? Of course not.

It is hard to take your ideas seriously and it seems like you want capitalists ("leaders" or governments) to gain power based on the blood and the toil of the workers, merely because they are better at "trade."

Agian, ridiculous.

Capitalists at least argue that they provide the "management" and resources that are necessary for a factory, thus they have the inherent right to other people's labor.

You advocate mysticism. That there is some mythical "free-market" paradise where everyone's labor is soley under their own control and solely their own, and this is somehow 'natural' and just the way nature intended it to be (also with no evidence of course).

You are a mystic instead of a serious anarchist, which is fine, but at least syndicalism is pragmatic.

[Havet]

Proof of this.

Try to live on your own without creating any food, that's all the proof you need.


But you're claiming that you can own property merely because you found it or 'earned' it through a market system, which means a government had to already be in place for you to get such property which means your property was derived from government.

Look, I haven't even mentioned homesteading or possession arguments and you are already strawmaning.

There is no such thing as a natural property right. All property rights, if people choose to enact them, come from democratic consensus of the people in that community, and that should be respected, so long as one is free to leave the community if he thinks otherwise.


Ridiculous. Free-markets have always created unequal conditions and has been proven in both industrialized countries and in third world countries, where the markets have been even free.

Id like to see proof of this. But don't bother, because I already know you are going to strawman by presenting proof of statist action, which goes against the definition of a free market.


You base your ideas on people who got their ideas from Misean economics, such as that you can only own something if:

1. You created it with tools that you produced without 'coercion.'

or 2. That you earned them through 'free-market trade.'

But you could never show an item you produced contains solely your own labor. What ideas were you using when you working on something? Science/engineering is a collective endeavor. What is the history of the tools you were using. You mean to tell me that they were always earned in a "market" that Miseans define as being free-market? Of course not.

It is hard to take your ideas seriously and it seems like you want capitalists ("leaders" or governments) to gain power based on the blood and the toil of the workers, merely because they are better at "trade."

Agian, ridiculous.

Capitalists at least argue that they provide the "management" and resources that are necessary for a factory, thus they have the inherent right to other people's labor.

You advocate mysticism. That there is some mythical "free-market" paradise where everyone's labor is soley under their own control and solely their own, and this is somehow 'natural' and just the way nature intended it to be (also with no evidence of course).

You are a mystic instead of a serious anarchist, which is fine, but at least syndicalism is pragmatic.

Like I explained above, I hold no natural rights views over property, that is to say, I don't think that just because someone was the first to find something they objectively own it.

What I find hilarious is that some communists claim the problem is that capitalists steal some portion of the product of the worker's labor, then claim that product doesn't even belong to the worker to begin with.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Id like to see proof of this. But don't bother, because I already know you are going to strawman by presenting proof of statist action, which goes against the definition of a free market.

I think the point he was obviously trying to make is that this "statist" action is the result of the "free market" in operation.

I hate it when you guys avoid the question though semantic games. If the free market will create the type of inequality that will make it advantageous for some groups to engage in "statist" action (whatever the hell that means, you guys can never properly define it!) then its no argument to go "UH WELL THEN IT HAZ NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREE MARKET IS DUE TO SOCIALISM HURRR DERP"

[Havet]

I think the point he was obviously trying to make is that this "statist" action is the result of the "free market" in operation.

I hate it when you guys avoid the question though semantic games. If the free market will create the type of inequality that will make it advantageous for some groups to engage in "statist" action (whatever the hell that means, you guys can never properly define it!) then its no argument to go "UH WELL THEN IT HAZ NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREE MARKET IS DUE TO SOCIALISM HURRR DERP"

If you want to argue properly, first define statist action (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1480146&postcount=1), then define free-market (which i define as free exchange of goods and services), then show me historical examples of how inequality, poverty, exploitation and such came from the exclusive free exchange of goods and services.

[IcarusAngel]

Try to live on your own without creating any food, that's all the proof you need.

When people lived on their own they did not have a society anything like "market anarchism," and when people decided to create governments they did not create governments based on market anarchist principles. the first real civilizations attempted to be democratic.


There is no such thing as a natural property right. All property rights, if people choose to enact them, come from democratic consensus of the people in that community, and that should be respected, so long as one is free to leave the community if he thinks otherwise.

I agree but I fail to see how this fits in with free-market principles.


Id like to see proof of this. But don't bother, because I already know you are going to strawman by presenting proof of statist action, which goes against the definition of a free market.

Like I explained above, I hold no natural rights views over property, that is to say, I don't think that just because someone was the first to find something they objectively own it.

This is all because you're not making any sense. First you say labor is the basis for ownership. But then you claim that it is not the case for ownership in certain situation like when someone "finds" land. You also claim that democratic communities determine how you can 'own' things (i.e., property, I guess), who may come up with usage based rights or things that have nothing to do with free-market theory.


What I find hilarious is that some communists claim the problem is that capitalists steal some portion of the product of the worker's labor, then claim that product doesn't even belong to the worker to begin with.

They are arguing against capitalist exploitation from an economic basis. Basically there is a portion of the product for which the worker toiled but received no pay. Surplus value. However, this is not hypocritical to note that they don't believe he "owns it" because they're saying the workers should own the means of production. Workers is plural. How they get the resources they need to live would come from the worker run factories, not from their 'labor.'

But... I do not argue from such an economic standpoint and make it clear that I disagree with capitalism from a political science standpoint. That is I do not agree with the capitalist control of the means of production to start with, because the free-market creates all kinds of problems, such as plutocratic ownership of the means of production. Furthermore the 'ownership' of land is arbitrary and not based on the most efficient methods, nor is it based on providing with people what they need. If a new invention comes along, the company won't necessarily implement it in order to save money, such as cars that go far using an electric battery.

It is unfair to the worker to live in a society where resources are not under their own control and yet they are the ones doing most of the inventing and all the other hard work.

Anyway,your arguments are all over the place and are unrealistic.

[Havet]

When people lived on their own they did not have a society anything like "market anarchism," and when people decided to create governments they did not create governments based on market anarchist principles. the first real civilizations attempted to be democratic.

When people lived on their own, they KEPT the products of their labor, and traded it, and created participatory democratic institutions , and raised their standard of living, in terms of health and knowledge. That's market anarchism.


I agree but I fail to see how this fits in with free-market principles.

Free-market principles, like other principles can only work in a sphere of consent and free association. If I were to force "free market principles" I would be creating tyranny, just as if you were forcing "commune" principles you would be creating tyranny. To the extent that your force is just defense against initial agression (suppose your commune saw that my freemarket community wasn't allowing people to leave that community), then it would be okay for you to use force, just as it would be okay for "my" community to use force against yours if, for eg, your commune were also restricting people from leaving.


This is all because you're not making any sense. First you say labor is the basis for ownership. But then you claim that it is not the case for ownership in certain situation like when someone "finds" land. You also claim that democratic communities determine how you can 'own' things (i.e., property, I guess), who may come up with usage based rights or things that have nothing to do with free-market theory.

I don't say labor is the basis of ownership. I said COMMUNISTS think labor is basis of ownership, and therefore the worker should not have to pay surplus to the capitalist, or whatever.

Yes, democratic communities may indeed end up creatinh usage based rights that go against neo-lockean property concepts. I have no problem with that, so long as others who think otherwise are free to leave that community and set up their own with other "rights".


They are arguing against capitalist exploitation from an economic basis. Basically there is a portion of the product for which the worker toiled but received no pay. Surplus value. However, this is not hypocritical to note that they don't believe he "owns it" because they're saying the workers should own the means of production. Workers is plural. How they get the resources they need to live would come from the worker run factories, not from their 'labor.'

And who creates those resources they need to live? That's right, THEIR LABOR.


But... I do not argue from such an economic standpoint and make it clear that I disagree with capitalism from a political science standpoint. That is I do not agree with the capitalist control of the means of production to start with, because the free-market creates all kinds of problems, such as plutocratic ownership of the means of production.

I don't quite follow how capitalism is bad because free-market creates problems. How is capitalism a free-market system? Only free-market capitalism would be free-market, but we don't have that system, because it is by definition impossible to enforce property rights through a state and then expect people to just go about trading things freely when they know there are goons which hold a monopoly of force and can change their mind at any moment.


Furthermore the 'ownership' of land is arbitrary and not based on the most efficient methods, nor is it based on providing with people what they need. If a new invention comes along, the company won't necessarily implement it in order to save money, such as cars that go far using an electric battery.

Could you elaborate on your car example? Because you didnt make much sense in so few words.

[Havet]

By the way - insert derogatory term here - you never explained who created corporations before you go talking about all the evil they do. I'd appreciate if you stop putting arguments then not replying them then bringing them up again in a vague attempt to confuse me and everyone reading. Your grammar decreases with every post, however your intellectual dishonesty is still increasing.

All these futile attempts to ad hom and troll and annoy me are, of course, stupid, but it just shows how you are not really interested in arguing when you don't answer them and pretend my arguments were never said. I don't really care, I still have time to go through your bullshit and every provocation. But you are stepping on dangerous ground, and I don't think you'll last long unrestricted if you keep going like this.

[IcarusAngel]

I'd appreciate [Error: this requires an object] if you stop putting arguments [Error] then not replying them [Error, there should be a comma here too] then bringing them up again in a vague attempt to confuse me and everyone reading [Error: I'm confusing everyone reading.] . Your grammar decreases with every post, however [Error] your intellectual dishonesty is still increasing.

Why is it that the people who correct other people's posts in this forum have like 5 to 10 grammar errors of their own each post? :lol:

Like the above post shows, you are inconsistent.

I ignored your "arguments" because you started repeating yourself again. I gave you an opportunity to explain the main differences between your "anarchism" and anarcho-syndicalism. You chose instead to rant and rave about your version of market tyranny. First you want "market" property rights, then you want democratic property rights, then you want "Neolockian" property rights, whatever that is (Locean property rights would be different from the former two, we know that). It basically seemed like you want people to vote among various forms of government that promote some form of 'property' compatible with the 'free-market', maybe "US incorporated" or "Somolia incorporated." At that point I decided we both had made our points.

That is the essense of a debate. A debate really isn't two people repeating the same thing over and over again. It is putting up your best arguments, and letting the people decide who is correct. (And a straw man is when you attack the opposition's worst argument. I was not doing this, I was showing the logical outcome of free-market tyranny.)

If you want me to stop correcting your posts stop making statements that are ridiculous, such as claiming computers, programming, music whatever = free-market tyranny. It's obvious you hate me for pointing out that it really isn't a matter of "free-market here" or "free-market there," and I'm not going to apologize for correcting your ignorance.

Your current post here shows not only that you distort things, but that you're absolutely fucking insane as well. Get a life, hayenmill.

[Havet]

Why is it that the people who correct other people's posts in this forum have like 5 to 10 grammar errors of their own each post?

Phailz

I did not post to correct your grammatical errors, but to argue your ideological errors.


I ignored your "arguments" because you started repeating yourself again. I gave you an opportunity to explain the main differences between your "anarchism" and anarcho-syndicalism. You chose instead to rant and rave about your version of market tyranny. First you want "market" property rights, then you want democratic property rights, then you want "Neolockian" property rights, whatever that is (Locean property rights would be different from the former two, we know that). It basically seemed like you want people to vote among various forms of government that promote some form of 'property' compatible with the 'free-market', maybe "US incorporated" or "Somolia incorporated." At that point I decided we both had made our points.

Just because you do not like my arguments doesn't mean you're right. Saying i was just "ranting" is just another proof of how you're not really interested in debating but in humiliating and making yourself feel more comfortable.

I never, ever, mentioned my support for neo-lockean property rights. In fact, you probably know what they mean a lot better than I do, since you like to brag about how you "study" everything.

I never said voting for governments. I said freedom of association. If you want a stateless market society, you are free to create one and to convince others to move in. If you want to create a commune, you're free to do so. You can have different types of governance without necessarily a government/State. That is called pluralism.

Just as well, you can have different types of "property rights" based upon different beliefs on how they might work.


That is the essense of a debate. A debate really isn't two people repeating the same thing over and over again. It is putting up your best arguments, and letting the people decide who is correct. (And a straw man is when you attack the opposition's worst argument. I was not doing this, I was showing the logical outcome of free-market tyranny.)

Once again you try to show how much of a "saint" you are by claiming it is me who doesn't know what to debate. I would say otherwise.

You take every opportunity to throw in the words misean, right-winger, libertarian, left-libertarian, etc in almost every single post of yours, even if its not related. It seems you get a hard-on everytime you say such words, because I can't come up with a rational explanation of why you would do such a thing. Then again i'm assuming you're rational. Ups.


If you want me to stop correcting your posts stop making statements that are ridiculous, such as claiming computers, programming, music whatever = free-market tyranny. It's obvious you hate me for pointing out that it really isn't a matter of "free-market here" or "free-market there," and I'm not going to apologize for correcting your ignorance.

*HERE'S WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:*

I think software would be developed as we are beginning to see already with the internet: incrementation.

Linux is a great example of this. It was the first step forwards, and it was then released for free. Afterwards, people change and tweak things about it freely, and the ones that become more popular are the ones who remain.

Scientific research would likely be funded by great institutions who got their funds voluntarily, although a community might impose some sort of tax in order to fund these.

Writers and musicians would get payed by consumers directly. A writer/musician is actually much more likely to make more money by letting his work for free and gain a reputation and then charging for exclusive things that can't be copied, like live performances, hard-cover books, etc. Some examples already exist as well: Vernian Process band (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.vernianprocess.com/http%3A/%252Fwww.vernianprocess.com/discography) and Radiohead's In Rainbows album (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002442.html)

So basically what i'm saying is that I DON'T think there would be intellectual property. And if there were, either it would be against common opinion or for common opinion.

Now where the fuck have I said that computers were an exclusive product of the free-market?

Where the fuck have i said that music is an exclusive product of free-market?

Where the fuck have I said that programming is an exclusive product of free-market?

Where the fuck have I said that scientific research is an exclusive product of free-markets?

That's right. I didn't. I only gave examples of realistic current day alternatives.

You start with the strawmans and you have the nerve to claim that it is I who is engaging in strawmans?

I think someone needs to go back to basics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic)


Your current post here shows not only that you distort things, but that you're absolutely fucking insane as well. Get a life, hayenmill.


http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/atlarge/epic_fail.jpg

[graffic]

I don't say labor is the basis of ownership. I said COMMUNISTS think labor is basis of ownership, and therefore the worker should not have to pay surplus to the capitalist, or whatever.

Hayenmill, you have this way of speaking/typing which is incredibly confusing. You seem to be making a really interesting point then you go and say something unrelated or opposed to what you previously said.



I don't quite follow how capitalism is bad because free-market creates problems. How is capitalism a free-market system?

Why does it matter whether capitalism "is" a free-market system? Of course the "free-market" has a lot to do with "capitalism. Capitalism and a free-market result in the tyranny of workers.

[Glenn Beck]

Jeez, get a room.

[Havet]

Hayenmill, you have this way of speaking/typing which is incredibly confusing. You seem to be making a really interesting point then you go and say something unrelated or opposed to what you previously said.

Well if you find it confusing, let me know and i'll be happy to rephrase it, so long as you ask nicely.

In my quote, I was taking the common communist argument of worker exploitation to its logical extreme in order to make a point. However, the person i was arguing made the false assumption that I was claiming that labor was the basis of ownership, when in fact, I was talking about how it was communists who assumed that, not me.


Why does it matter whether capitalism "is" a free-market system? Of course the "free-market" has a lot to do with "capitalism. Capitalism and a free-market result in the tyranny of workers.

It matters because I support free-markets but not capitalism (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/), and there is a difference, and many people agree with me, between both terms.