- 28 Nov 2014 21:21
#14491753
LIBERAL SYNDICALISM
Unlike the more hard-line, and in my view, less pragmatic socialists belonging to Marxist and anarchist camps, I do not imagine a society without money or one that is completely free of wage labour. Nor do I envision a society without ‘the State’ – depending on how such a term is defined. Furthermore I am loathesome to reject parliamentary processes entirely. As such, I would be as quick to reject a violent Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat as I would be to reject a widespread grass-roots anarchist movement to expropriate capitalists. Finally, there is no reason to suggest that private ownership needs to be completely abolished, or indeed, capitalism, in my vision of a future political economy that is pragmatically obtainable.
The most important element of society that is both liberal and syndicalist would be a decentralisation of power from national government to local councils and town halls and a subsequent localisation of political decision making. That is to say, the full extension of liberal democracy would be the result. Furthermore, there would be an extension of democracy from the political to the economic with the establishment of a mutualist federation of Proudhonian banks of the people. In such a society, various co-operatives would compete in a non-capitalist quasi-free market. Some elements of private ownership would remain intact however: small and self-employed businesses would remain private as this is in the interests of personal and economic freedom. They would be free to establish themselves as part of a collective if they so-decided (and this would very likely be part of the wider political dynamic).
Crucial sectors of the economy such as the energy sector, the financial industry and the corporate farming industry would likely be collectivised in one of two manners depending on the democratic processes in individual communities. In one way, local councils may decide to claim ownership of a local corporation if the communities in the area expressed a concern that this corporation was not acting in the public interest. This could happen in the event that the company was proven to be engaging in non-resourceful or environmentally damaging behaviours, for example. In this case the company would subsequently be collectivised and reorganised in a Libertarian fashion that emphasises worker self-management and varying degrees of community involvement. Such a business structure would be in juxtaposition to the typical capitalist hierarchy.
As an example, General Motors in 1988-90 used a co-operative labour initiative – the ‘Pilot Programme’ - which proved to be prosperous but was terminated with concerns from management that the system would be too successful and delegitimise their authority! Further examples of co-operative labour on a wider socio-political level include the Paris Communes, the early 19th Century European Syndicalist Movement, Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations, the May-June Revolt in France 1968, the Spanish Revolution, Mondragon co-operatives in the Basque Country and Robert Owen co-operatives in England (which lead to the establishment of the Co-operative supermarket and the Co-operative bank, both businesses remain intact to the present). Another method of collectivising property would be the seizure of land and capital by a grass-roots movement. In some communities, depending on the radicalised nature of the political community, occupations, lock-outs and even expropriation may be deemed legal provided that the corporation operates on a hierarchical structure to begin with. The corporation, now under co-operative management may voluntarily decide to join the local or national labour federation, the council, or both.
It should be noted that collectivisation means worker self-management, not welfarism! This said, there would certainly be welfare recipients with real physical or mental handicaps who were in genuine need of such benefits but a socialist attitude would prevail maintaining that the fruits of labour should be in self-ownership. This means the absence of any class that leeches from the surplus value of labour, whether it be an elite class that claims profits and interests from wage labour and usury, or an under-class that absorbs the redistribution of labour earnings illegitimately. Neither systems of welfarism or laissez-faire are particularly desirable. That is why syndicalism is first and foremost about the collectivisation and self-management of the means of production. This is to ensure that labour is fully and justly rewarded, contrary to what a lot of people falsely believe to be true of socialism. It is under social democracy that the welfare state exists and it exists as a reactionary force – to provide a less than satisfactory remedy to the systemic exploitation of labour by private monopolisation, which is both directly and indirectly influenced by the State. In short cries against welfarism by the free market right are echoed on the far-left. It is simply the case that less emphasis is given to these protests in light of a much wealthier and parasitic capitalist class that is far more proficient at extracting labour surplus than the underclasses. This is an issue that is ignored by the free market right.
Some may object to such measures as violent, or even unjust. The response to this is that the land and capital monopolisation of present is not based on a more philosophically sound theory of property rights. This statement can be explored and proven on multiple different levels. For one thing, the Lockean homesteading principle that land is ethically acquired through acts of labour, turning land into capital is flawed because what constitutes an act of labour? What constitutes turning land into capital? It is subjective. For instance, may a fisherman claim ownership of an entire river because he built (an act of labour) a fishing platform (a capital good)? Or does he just get the fishing platform? And why does an individual get to monopolise land and capital that they no longer operate, maybe even neglect, so that they can increase their individual assets while employing labour to work on the land and capital. User and occupancy rights allow individuals ownership of their own personal possessions – that are not used in mass economic production – as well as a right to the product of their labour. This means a right to management and share in ownership on the land and capital they work, depending on their labour output and the political culture of the local community, as well as the full and just reward for their labour.
Furthermore, what about the historic acquisition of property? The current system of capitalistic property rights is based on the land enclosures, not Libertarian fantasy theories about homesteading that only happen in Robinson Crusoe type social-vacuums. So, there isn’t even really a Libertarian justification for the way property is acquired when it happens in the real world (surely presently acquired land and capital from the enclosures should be redistributed to the descendants of the individuals that were expropriated unjustly!). This unjust and unequal distribution of land and capital gives capitalists a stronger bargaining position in labour markets, employing masses of blue-collar labour, often cheaper migrant labour from abroad – and therefore able to accumulate profits by extracting a greater labour surplus as part of the working contract. This exploitation of labour itself is unethical regardless of the so-called ‘voluntary’ or ‘mutually-beneficial’ nature of the contracts. If a man has a choice between life and death, he will usually choose life. Indeed, he is forced to choose life. A bullet forces you to choose life just as much as the threat of starvation, so impoverished workers desperately swarming over to sweat shops are hardly acting any more voluntarily than a man handed his wallet over to a robber with a gun. Finally, in the real world, it is not abstract principles and theories of justice (often designed to serve elite interests) that carry any weight: it is consequence and therefore the merits or disadvantages to a given act or policy that holds true gravity. Capitalistic property rights lead to systemic exploitation, and indeed their very acquisition is violent, enforced by the State and therefore undesirable for most people. This is to say that there is no consequentialist justification.
Such a political economy would, on a regional level, be very similar to an Athenian styled turn-table democracy with elected delegates in charge of running frequent town hall meetings, councils and various boards while the prevailing political culture encourages the individual to be radically engaged in local politics as part of the wider community spirit. However minorities would be protected from tyranny of the majority in various ways. For one thing, co-operatives, small and self-employed businesses would maintain a high degree of autonomy competing in a quasi-free non-capitalist market. For another, delegates would take responsibility for numerous forms of decision making, often dependent on public sentiment (e.g. polls): only the most important decisions would be decided based in town hall meetings. Finally, the electorate in these decisions would consist only of the individuals involved in the impact of such a decision. It would be the small group individuals living in a community where housing demolition was being considered that would have the vote, not the larger group of individuals in the community nearby who want a supermarket to be built there!
On a national level, voluntary and co-operative labour federations would be responsible for the national integration of the economy: in particular they would be concerned with projects that need to occur on a national basis such as road construction, transport and trade between various communities. Militias, where required for law and order would operate on established systems of justice in a community and the national labour federations would intervene only when a regional legal dispute results in local divisions of attitudes and beliefs that make the conflict impossible to resolve without strife, violence and further community division. Internationally, there would be no recognised countries, in the sense of security borders which outline the geographic monopolisation of State mandated territories. There would however be international labour federations and security councils similar to the modern day United Nations and NATO: collaboratively acting as regulating, intervening bodies with peace proposals and collective decision making as far as international disputes are concerned but with limited powers and containing no central authority as such.
In conclusion, it is in this organic, voluntary and co-operative manner that all societal order should stem. This should happen on a regional, national and finally international basis with the principle in mind always being a just and egalitarian society that is free from systemic hierarchy and exploitation. Such a system would realise a full-fruition of the French Enlightenment values: liberty, equality and solidarity. This type of community spirit would be just, respect the environment, respect individual autonomy, provide equal opportunities for materialistic goals and ambitions and it would promote a lively, cultured and highly politicised community spirit. Because some free market values are left intact, such a culture is created without sacrificing entrepeneurship or the ambitious desire for success. Furthermore, in the economy, certain logistical issues in production which are associated with removing prices and over economic difficulties that are associated with socialism, particularly authoritarian socialism are avoided.
Unlike the more hard-line, and in my view, less pragmatic socialists belonging to Marxist and anarchist camps, I do not imagine a society without money or one that is completely free of wage labour. Nor do I envision a society without ‘the State’ – depending on how such a term is defined. Furthermore I am loathesome to reject parliamentary processes entirely. As such, I would be as quick to reject a violent Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat as I would be to reject a widespread grass-roots anarchist movement to expropriate capitalists. Finally, there is no reason to suggest that private ownership needs to be completely abolished, or indeed, capitalism, in my vision of a future political economy that is pragmatically obtainable.
The most important element of society that is both liberal and syndicalist would be a decentralisation of power from national government to local councils and town halls and a subsequent localisation of political decision making. That is to say, the full extension of liberal democracy would be the result. Furthermore, there would be an extension of democracy from the political to the economic with the establishment of a mutualist federation of Proudhonian banks of the people. In such a society, various co-operatives would compete in a non-capitalist quasi-free market. Some elements of private ownership would remain intact however: small and self-employed businesses would remain private as this is in the interests of personal and economic freedom. They would be free to establish themselves as part of a collective if they so-decided (and this would very likely be part of the wider political dynamic).
Crucial sectors of the economy such as the energy sector, the financial industry and the corporate farming industry would likely be collectivised in one of two manners depending on the democratic processes in individual communities. In one way, local councils may decide to claim ownership of a local corporation if the communities in the area expressed a concern that this corporation was not acting in the public interest. This could happen in the event that the company was proven to be engaging in non-resourceful or environmentally damaging behaviours, for example. In this case the company would subsequently be collectivised and reorganised in a Libertarian fashion that emphasises worker self-management and varying degrees of community involvement. Such a business structure would be in juxtaposition to the typical capitalist hierarchy.
As an example, General Motors in 1988-90 used a co-operative labour initiative – the ‘Pilot Programme’ - which proved to be prosperous but was terminated with concerns from management that the system would be too successful and delegitimise their authority! Further examples of co-operative labour on a wider socio-political level include the Paris Communes, the early 19th Century European Syndicalist Movement, Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations, the May-June Revolt in France 1968, the Spanish Revolution, Mondragon co-operatives in the Basque Country and Robert Owen co-operatives in England (which lead to the establishment of the Co-operative supermarket and the Co-operative bank, both businesses remain intact to the present). Another method of collectivising property would be the seizure of land and capital by a grass-roots movement. In some communities, depending on the radicalised nature of the political community, occupations, lock-outs and even expropriation may be deemed legal provided that the corporation operates on a hierarchical structure to begin with. The corporation, now under co-operative management may voluntarily decide to join the local or national labour federation, the council, or both.
It should be noted that collectivisation means worker self-management, not welfarism! This said, there would certainly be welfare recipients with real physical or mental handicaps who were in genuine need of such benefits but a socialist attitude would prevail maintaining that the fruits of labour should be in self-ownership. This means the absence of any class that leeches from the surplus value of labour, whether it be an elite class that claims profits and interests from wage labour and usury, or an under-class that absorbs the redistribution of labour earnings illegitimately. Neither systems of welfarism or laissez-faire are particularly desirable. That is why syndicalism is first and foremost about the collectivisation and self-management of the means of production. This is to ensure that labour is fully and justly rewarded, contrary to what a lot of people falsely believe to be true of socialism. It is under social democracy that the welfare state exists and it exists as a reactionary force – to provide a less than satisfactory remedy to the systemic exploitation of labour by private monopolisation, which is both directly and indirectly influenced by the State. In short cries against welfarism by the free market right are echoed on the far-left. It is simply the case that less emphasis is given to these protests in light of a much wealthier and parasitic capitalist class that is far more proficient at extracting labour surplus than the underclasses. This is an issue that is ignored by the free market right.
Some may object to such measures as violent, or even unjust. The response to this is that the land and capital monopolisation of present is not based on a more philosophically sound theory of property rights. This statement can be explored and proven on multiple different levels. For one thing, the Lockean homesteading principle that land is ethically acquired through acts of labour, turning land into capital is flawed because what constitutes an act of labour? What constitutes turning land into capital? It is subjective. For instance, may a fisherman claim ownership of an entire river because he built (an act of labour) a fishing platform (a capital good)? Or does he just get the fishing platform? And why does an individual get to monopolise land and capital that they no longer operate, maybe even neglect, so that they can increase their individual assets while employing labour to work on the land and capital. User and occupancy rights allow individuals ownership of their own personal possessions – that are not used in mass economic production – as well as a right to the product of their labour. This means a right to management and share in ownership on the land and capital they work, depending on their labour output and the political culture of the local community, as well as the full and just reward for their labour.
Furthermore, what about the historic acquisition of property? The current system of capitalistic property rights is based on the land enclosures, not Libertarian fantasy theories about homesteading that only happen in Robinson Crusoe type social-vacuums. So, there isn’t even really a Libertarian justification for the way property is acquired when it happens in the real world (surely presently acquired land and capital from the enclosures should be redistributed to the descendants of the individuals that were expropriated unjustly!). This unjust and unequal distribution of land and capital gives capitalists a stronger bargaining position in labour markets, employing masses of blue-collar labour, often cheaper migrant labour from abroad – and therefore able to accumulate profits by extracting a greater labour surplus as part of the working contract. This exploitation of labour itself is unethical regardless of the so-called ‘voluntary’ or ‘mutually-beneficial’ nature of the contracts. If a man has a choice between life and death, he will usually choose life. Indeed, he is forced to choose life. A bullet forces you to choose life just as much as the threat of starvation, so impoverished workers desperately swarming over to sweat shops are hardly acting any more voluntarily than a man handed his wallet over to a robber with a gun. Finally, in the real world, it is not abstract principles and theories of justice (often designed to serve elite interests) that carry any weight: it is consequence and therefore the merits or disadvantages to a given act or policy that holds true gravity. Capitalistic property rights lead to systemic exploitation, and indeed their very acquisition is violent, enforced by the State and therefore undesirable for most people. This is to say that there is no consequentialist justification.
Such a political economy would, on a regional level, be very similar to an Athenian styled turn-table democracy with elected delegates in charge of running frequent town hall meetings, councils and various boards while the prevailing political culture encourages the individual to be radically engaged in local politics as part of the wider community spirit. However minorities would be protected from tyranny of the majority in various ways. For one thing, co-operatives, small and self-employed businesses would maintain a high degree of autonomy competing in a quasi-free non-capitalist market. For another, delegates would take responsibility for numerous forms of decision making, often dependent on public sentiment (e.g. polls): only the most important decisions would be decided based in town hall meetings. Finally, the electorate in these decisions would consist only of the individuals involved in the impact of such a decision. It would be the small group individuals living in a community where housing demolition was being considered that would have the vote, not the larger group of individuals in the community nearby who want a supermarket to be built there!
On a national level, voluntary and co-operative labour federations would be responsible for the national integration of the economy: in particular they would be concerned with projects that need to occur on a national basis such as road construction, transport and trade between various communities. Militias, where required for law and order would operate on established systems of justice in a community and the national labour federations would intervene only when a regional legal dispute results in local divisions of attitudes and beliefs that make the conflict impossible to resolve without strife, violence and further community division. Internationally, there would be no recognised countries, in the sense of security borders which outline the geographic monopolisation of State mandated territories. There would however be international labour federations and security councils similar to the modern day United Nations and NATO: collaboratively acting as regulating, intervening bodies with peace proposals and collective decision making as far as international disputes are concerned but with limited powers and containing no central authority as such.
In conclusion, it is in this organic, voluntary and co-operative manner that all societal order should stem. This should happen on a regional, national and finally international basis with the principle in mind always being a just and egalitarian society that is free from systemic hierarchy and exploitation. Such a system would realise a full-fruition of the French Enlightenment values: liberty, equality and solidarity. This type of community spirit would be just, respect the environment, respect individual autonomy, provide equal opportunities for materialistic goals and ambitions and it would promote a lively, cultured and highly politicised community spirit. Because some free market values are left intact, such a culture is created without sacrificing entrepeneurship or the ambitious desire for success. Furthermore, in the economy, certain logistical issues in production which are associated with removing prices and over economic difficulties that are associated with socialism, particularly authoritarian socialism are avoided.