|
|||||||||||||
Anarcho-Syndicalism versus On Land and Work
Letter #11
Greetings, again,
Possession of stolen property is as much of a crime as burglary; it is prosecuted just as fiercely by the district attorneys. Our entire legal system has made no distinction between theft and buying something stolen. When a worker steals, they are imprisoned. But when a CEO steals, they're given a tax break. Either there should be no prosecution of theft for the poor, or there should be prosecution of the rich for possessing wealth that was stolen. Unless you create an equality of rights between citizens, you're talking about keeping the majority of Americans as second-class citizens. This is also unconstitutional, as the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution declares that each person shall have equal protection of the law. Why would you take the rule of Capitalism over the rule of our Constitution?
Actually, the 'cooling off' period is from a section of the Taft-Hartley Act. [*1] And you are misinterpreting the Wagner Act. Quoting from wikipedia, "...unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a 'closed shop,' in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment." Workers could form a voluntary contract with an employer, that made union-membership a requirement? Sounds like FREEDOM OF CONTRACT to me. If you prohibit the workers from entering into agreements, it is NOT freedom of contract; if you use violence, prisons and coercion, to make unions sign certain agreements, then it is FORCED contract. Capitalists make associations that are exclusive all the time, from trusts to monopolies to price discrimination rings. The entire capitalist economy is based on EXCLUSION. If Capitalists can make free agreements with each other, to exclude others, why should workers be imprisoned for doing the same exact thing? Once again, you're talking about a court system and a legislature that exists for the property owners and against the working class.
We are perhaps in complete agreement on this point. I wouldn't say that every Socialist system forces labor. Authoritarian Socialists, in Vietnam, China, Russia, Cuba, or anywhere else, really, have done this. But, there is a significant difference between an elected political party, and one that has always ruled through force. In France, [*2] Spain, [*3] and Germany, [*4] we find some of the most active Socialist Parties. And in spite of this, we find some of the most active and militant unions. In the year of 1995, the French government reported over six million strike days. [*5] There is not a direct link between Socialist governments and prohibition of workers' rights -- there is, however, a direct link between Authoritarian governments, and the prohibition of workers' rights. In regards to the authoritarian Communists and Socialists, I consider them to be among the worst governments to have visited this world. There is no mystery about it, though. When very few people control all of the land, there will be mass poverty and unemployment. The essential rule of economics is that everyone acts in their own self-interest, and acts rationally in regards to this impulse. For those on top, who own virtually everything, the only self-interest is maintaining power, and the only way to do this is in exploiting and oppressing the common people. Whether they're named Carnegie or Chairman Mao, they had troops open fire on workers for striking. Changing management doesn't do anything. If there's someone on top, they're going to try and stay there as long as possible, no matter who has to be killed or imprisoned for it. You oppose Authoritarian Communist Parties that exploit their people, and this is rational. But it becomes irrational when a Capitalist does the same exact thing, and you call it liberty. And in regards to elective Socialists, I mostly accuse them of being inefficient. If you can get ten million workers to vote for your candidate, then why are you running for office to begin with? If those ten million workers went on strike, they could bring any economy grinding to a halt. Instead of forming coalitions with other parties, or watering down their platform to attract voters, they'll be unionizing and striking. Ten million workers striking will definitely improve their wages and job security very quickly. Especially when compared with the same ten million workers dropping pieces of paper into a box.
The workers were perfectly organized to engage in collective bargaining for our rights to the land. This has happened multiple times, in all continents, in all eras. The reaction of the Capitalist class has always been to bribe government into violently repressing the workers. Why would they react so strongly to those who want to peaceably assert their rights? It should be quite clear: because through collective bargaining, the rights to the land would have been ours today. The violence against the workers isn't something that just happened once or twice; it is an undeniable, constant trend throughout history. Quoting Adam Smith, "The masters upon these occasions [of strikes] are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen." [*6] This prohibition of unions, and use of violence against organized labor, goes back to Ancient Rome, during the Secessio Plebis. We find it in England in 1350, where unions were prohibited, "In the preamble it complains much of the insolence of servants, who endeavoured to raise their wages upon their masters." [*7] The unionist Joe Hill was the seventeenth person accused of a murder, and even though there was no evidence against him, he was executed. [*8] Sacco and Vanzetti, once again, were other labor activists executed for their ideas, without even the slightest bit of evidence against them. [*9] Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned for organizing unions. [*10] Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Big Bill Haywood were some of the most important labor activists in the United States. They were all deported, illegally and unconstitutionally. [*11] President Cleveland ordered 20,000 troops to violently crush strikers. [*12] French General Strike of 1968, to the Canadian General Strike of 1919, to the Australian General Strike of 1917, to the Uruguan General Strike of 1984 -- workers are imprisoned, tortured, and executed. This wasn't just an occasional, or "accidental" slip up of justice. Since the Ancient Roman empire, this has been the in practice method of respecting labor rights -- no matter which nation you examine, or what era you investigate. If freedom of contract has ever existed, we would be living in a world where the workers own the means of production. If you want to defend property rights and the right to contract, then you have to give the land to the workers. Refusing to is taking the government's position: workers are second-class citizens, and business owners are kings with a heavenly mandate. There are two ways to argue against this. You can claim that the governments of the world have equally treated the capitalist class and the working class -- which is to admit ignorance of all history. Or you have to argue against the right of people to enter into voluntary relationships for shared goals. If you think history happened another way, or that workers should have fewer rights, then I'd love to hear either argument.
My dear friend, we have already agreed that the United States government has engaged in foreign wars to profit the Capitalist class. Why would you want to waste time in prosecuting some graffiti artist, when there are genocidists at the top levels of our government? One might extend this argument even further. The capitalist class supports an illegal war for profits. The vandals and saboteurs who get in their way, then, are freedom fighters. The Free Fighting French destroyed train tracks and burned down buildings, to make their oppressive government less efficient. We didn't merely excuse this, but we encouraged it! Today, the US government slaughters millions in its wars; why would you discourage those who resist it? You seem to forget that all Civil Liberties in the United States come from men and women breaking the law. To quote Martin Luther King, "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." [*13]
This section seems a bit thoughtless. You know that the debt from welfare is greater than is being reported? Depending on who you ask, social welfare accounts for several hundred billion annually, to over a trillion. Are you really saying that you have personal evidence that the debt is greater than this? For that to be possible... you would have to have a personal account of where each of the several hundred billion dollars was going -- and then you would need to have personal information of how much the real debt exceeds this. If a family were to receive, say, $12,000 annually, that would mean you know the personal finances of some... well, eight million families? I have lived in New Orleans, Boston, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon -- I've traveled through Las Vegas, New York City, Detroit, Atlanta, and Denver. And I did all of it in a matter of maybe six years. I certainly did not see the personal finances of all the people; but I definitely witnessed how the majority lived on a day-to-day basis. You said that the government's definition of poverty is bogus. It is set at roughly $8,000 annually for a single person. The cheapest apartments I've ever found were $400 to $500 monthly -- they dangerously exposed occupants to asbestos, chemicals, rot, and diseases. And yet, this cost, along with electric and water bills, covers the entire $8,000 annually. The defined poverty level defines people who are either homeless, or who eat air, but certainly not both. Here's an NPR article that thoroughly covers the issue: Poverty in America [*14]
Some economists might disagree with you. Isaac Gervaise, wrote, "God made Man for Labour, so not thing in this World is of any solid or durable Worth, but what is the Produce of Labour." [*15] David Hume wrote, "Every thing in the world is purchased by labour..." [*16] James Steuart wrote, "...wealth never can come in but by the produce of labour going out..." [*17] J.C.L. Simonde di Sismonde wrote, "All that man values is created by his industry..." [*18] Robert Own, an influential sociologist in the 1800's, wrote, "...know that revenue has but one legitimate source that it is derived directly or indirectly from the labour of man..." [*19] Thomas Hodgskin wrote, "The labourer, the real maker of any commodity..." [*20] Robert Green Ingersoll, "The great body of the people make all the money; do all the work." [*21] And finally, Thorsten Veblen wrote, "...the goods [are] produced by labor..." [*22] If you think wealth can exist without labor, can you please tell me how? All wealth was produced by the laborers. The only reason we do not possess it today, of course, is because it has been taken from us. The Capitalist, like the state, has used every means of violence and coercion against us. Without this type of force, it is certain we would still be the owners of land. Where there is freedom and liberty, people tend to organize to achieve mutual and cooperative ends. This necessarily means the union, and striking, in order to create jobs and to give people the right to work. But such organizations have been so violently oppressed, since the dawn of government. There needs to be no explanation of why very few in society own everything, and the majority are at their mercy economically. In 2006, only one percent of our nation received more than half of the wealth produced in the country. [*23] Does this sound like the natural, just, and healthy order -- or does it sound like governments and Capitalists have worked hand-in-hand to oppress and exploit us? Furthermore, could you please point to a case of Free Enterprise where there was no unemployment or poverty? If Free Enterprise never abolished unemployment before, I do not expect it to abolish unemployment tomorrow. Andy Carloff, Resources *1. Taft-Hartley Act, Title 29, Chapter 7, United States Code, Sec. 178. Injunctions during national emergency, part A: I-II.
Letter #12
1. Ok, quit beating around the bush: you claim that CEOs are "stealing" property. How is this so? I understand that some CEO's do steal from their companies, and many times they are prosecuted. Sometimes the stockholders are never made whole. But what are you talking about, claiming that companies steal property, or possess stolen property. Please outline how this would happen. 2. Your description of the Wagner Act was not really very honest. Right there in the Wikipedia article, it says this: a.. "Employers have a duty to bargain with the representative of its employees." This is, of course, the wrong that I was referring to. It's not a "free contract" if the law says you MUST negotiate with anybody or anything. In a free market, people have a choice whether they will negotiate with you or me or nobody. They negotiate with the entity that they believe they may be able to reach some commercial agreement with. For example, suppose I run a factory and all my workers unionize. Maybe I decide I don't want a union in my shop - why shouldn't I be free to seek independent laborers and fire the union employees? WHy cannot I hire who I like? It's my business, and my job. So the Wagner Act most certainly DOES bar free negotiation and contracting by the parties. The free market is no guarantee that somebody will do business with you. That freedom is left up to him and you. I have a right to decide which store I will patronize. The store should have the right to decide which customers it will serve. 3. Taft-Hartley is the "progeny" of Wagner - it is a piece of legislation in the string of labor-regulations which the Congress adopted. All these laws are unconstitutional, as the Federal Government has no general power or authority to regulate business activities. 4. Just try to be a free and independent worker in a socialist country, and you will find out that they have adopted wicked laws that bar you from contracting with an employer unless you join a union. In a free society, people can strike, and businesses can fire them. In a socialist society (and even a welfare capitalist society such as our own) that has adopted iniquitous union empowering legislation, businesses often cannot effectively fire the workers who strike. Therefore, the government has to step in, in many cases, and order people back to work (such as the Taft-Hartley provision you cite). In a free society, people could strike till they were blue in the face, and the government could never tell them to go back to work. If the business found it advantageous, they could be fired, and other workers hired to replace them. In a free society, the government would have nothing to do with it. 5. I dispute your claim that true freedom of contract would result in the workers owning the property. I don't know why you believe this, but I see no evidence for it. No matter how level you start off a playing field, somebody is going to be more entrepreneuraial, more innovative, more original, more longsighted, than most other people. Those individuals are going to collect wealth, and they are going to invest that wealth in enterprise, and they are going to create an employee/employer relationship. In that case, the employer will own the business and its property, and the workers will not. I have a very small business. What assets I have I have bought by saving and investing my profits in my company. Then I hired a person or two to work for me so I can be more efficient. I own everything. I pay them an agree-upon salary. There is no force or coercion involved. Tell me how they are going to get a piece of my company? JPH--
Letter #13
Greetings,
I have, in fact, outlined how this would happen, and then I provided six or seven references to support my theory. Capitalists, in order to steal, bribe the government to violently oppress unionist or community activists. The thing that is stolen is labor value. That labor value was about to be exchanged for the right to the lands and to employment. By using force and violence, the government has kept property in the hands of the Capitalists. Besides that, look at where the majority of imported products are coming from: China, Burma, Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, and a host of other third-world nations. Burma, for instance, has a military dictatorship. Many of the workers there are forced laborers, and yet this is where our companies derive their profits. But this isn't new -- Siemens contracted Jewish slave labor during the Holocaust to make its electronics and commodities. Our corporations have propped up these dictators, financed them, and then kept them running. What makes you think that the profits they make genuinely belong to the businesses, and not the workers? But, this is an old game, going back thousands of years. All businesses, by paying taxes and exchanging stolen goods, are participants -- they each contribute to these third-world slaveries, and they each benefit from them. You couldn't possibly argue in favor of slavery, where a Capitalist "owns" his profit -- actually, it genuinely belongs to the slave. Similarly, Capitalist businesses contribute to dictatorships, or oppressive, anti-union politicians. The only reason a slave owner "owns" property is because they stole it from a slave -- using the whip and gun. The only reason a Capitalist "owns" property is because they stole it from a worker -- using the state and the police. But in both cases, I deny that the so-called "property owner" has any rights. I've shown references to demonstrate why I think these are genuine historical trends, and I've explained the connection several times. If you have a counter-theory, tell me. Or if you think my theory has holes in it, tell me.
You are right -- I did quickly gloss over the act, and pointed out one specific part of it, which is the union-shop. This appears to be the most common objection to it, so I just assumed it was yours, but I was wrong... The Wagner Act does not prohibit hiring scabs during an industrial conflict. The requirement to bargain doesn't mean the business owner has to reach a bargain. Either way, the legislation here seems pretty misguided. If a Capitalist wants to bargain in good faith, then they will. If they're forced to bargain, then they'll just turn down any offer the union makes them -- and then fake sincerity. I wouldn't mind at all if this provision was removed from the Wagner Act. But, there are other significant, important parts of the act. You do have the right to fire striking unionists, but you do not have the right to fire unionists for being unionists. Employers in the past have fired workers for belonging to unions, to political parties, for voting, for activism, and for every sort of thing that might offend the employer. Freedom of contract, of course, would genuinely allow the employer to discriminate against their employess for any reason. But look at the White Citizens' Council in the South. It was an association of employers who refused to hire African Americans who voted or participated in the government. Here we have an entire state government, completely owned and managed by a minority of whites -- it was very much so Apartheid rule. Quoting from Wikipedia, "African Americans who were seen as being too supportive of desegregation, voting rights, or other perceived threats to whites' supremacy found themselves and their family members unemployed in many instances." [*1] Now, if you're talking about letting employers firing and hiring whoever they want, you're also talking about a complete breakdown in the Democratic process. If you had to choose, you'd take eating over voting -- I know it. Now all of the courts, all of the laws, all of the legislatures, have made laws against those on bottom and for those on top. If you prohibit the majority from participating in government, and that government steals their property to give to the wealthy -- does this not also constitute theft, and doesn't the property still belong to the people? That is to say, the common people? Of course, none of this would have been an issue to begin with, if the workers owned and managed their land. The many who were killed during strikes, who were shot in the streets by police and the army -- if force had not been used against us, we would be the possessors of the land today. If you want freedom of contract, don't start by firing unionists for being in unions. Start by giving stolen property to its original owner: the common workers.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. When I said that Socialist Parties are not inherently authoritarian, it wasn't an endorsement. In fact, I am completely opposed to the top-down, governmentalized form of Socialism. All Socialist Parties, from Britain to Australia to India to Venezuela -- all of them rule "in the name of the workers." They speak so much of worker suffering, about the evils of Capitalism, but they don't change anything. From my first letter, I said that I wanted workers directly to manage the tools and land they work; for each business to be organized and managed democratically through the workers there. This is direct worker management. No Socialist Party has ever created this; they have only created, "A new Capitalist (the government) who looks after the worker." I don't want a change in management -- I want to be the direct owner and manager of the means of production. If I become unemployed, I want it to be because I can't add anything of value to the economy; I don't want it to be because some Capitalist thinks they can get 0.25% better revenue by buying war bonds. The organization, the management, the profits, and the right to labor the earth for myself -- I want all of these things to be mine, and I don't want to exclude anyone else by taking them. This is the only way to make the individual the master of their own fate.
One of my recurring arguments has been that the workers have been exploited -- throughout all continents, all ages, all peoples. Where do you think the American automobile engine came from? It was invented by Nikola Tesla. [*2] His contract was for $50,000, or a million in today's money. What happened? His employer, Thomas Edison, paid him $18, instead, and the courts did nothing. The automatic steam engine, which played a significant role in the industrial revolution, was invented by a child, who received absolutely nothing out of it. [*3] Many of the textile industry's machines, likewise, were invented by common laborers. Just like some centuries ago, we have the same exact organization today. Most companies require that an employee sign away the rights to any invention they create during their employment. The people who are innovative, who think, who make new things -- that's us, the workers. We didn't just mine the iron out of the earth, transport it on a train, and then manufacture it into a commodity -- we also designed many of the instruments and tools from point A, where it was ore, and point B, where it was a commodity. Once again, just like in union struggles, the state has sided with the wealthy capitalist, and against the workers.
And I'm exploited, completely alienated from my workplace, downtrodden, and occassionally I was illegally imprisoned (in which I successfully sued the government -- $600 is all you get when some police officer picks you up and drops you off in the state penitentiary, without any type of processing at all). Police have dragged me out of my house, I've been threatened, attacked by managers, and laughed at by 9-11 respondents. Yeah -- this gets a little bit messier to debate when we focus on our own personal experiences, and not on the larger picture. The abuse which I have received, in fact, is certainly proof that the Capitalist police state has always existed, and will always continue to exploit and oppress its workers -- especially those of us who speak out. The only way I can have my liberty is if there are no Capitalists to bribe government -- if there are only workers managing their industries. Thank you, Andy Carloff, Resources *1. Wikipedia article, "White Citizen's Council," Wikipedia Article.
Letter #14
All you have done is give some examples of anti-union violence in the past. However, you have not shown that this is the rule, or that it explains the current ownership issues. When you say that the labor's value was "about to be exchanged" for the lands and the right to employment, where are you getting that? What makes you think that businesses are interested in such an arrangement? What makes you think that such a contract would be entered into? If you look at the overwhelming hundred million jobs in this country, almost none of them involve the use of force or violence of any kind in the contracting for labor. People want a job. Businesses have jobs to offer. An employment agreement is freely reached. The jobs are taken. The wages are paid. Both the laborer and the businessman benefit from the arrangement. Don't try to hang the foreign laborer thing on me. My party opposes all those free trade deals, and we believe in import tariffs to finance government operations. Almost all businesses that operate in America have no overseas employment issues, etc. It is primarily the consumers of America that benefit from the low-paying overseas jobs. You need to take it up with the consumers who like the cheap prices. When you say that capitalists own property because they stole it from the workers, you are telling lies. I am a capitalist, and I never stole anything from anybody. I worked hard, I saved, I invested in equipment and resources. Granted, I am a very very small capitalist, but I now have some capital. I always paid my full-time employees MORE than I made myself per hour. How dare you suggest that I stole anything. You have a real moral problem to make such a claim. And the fact is, almost all the capitalists in America never stole anything from anybody. They made their money and built their companies the same way I did. The notion that the money I made and saved and invested is stolen from my employees is a morally degenerate idea. For you to hold that idea shows that you do not understand the notion of right and wrong, or the notion of ownership and property. That means you are not qualified to discuss these matters intelligently. I paid my employees what I agreed to pay them, and what they agreed to work for. That is the end of their interest in my business profits. By your twisted logic, I could claim that the laborers, who took my wages, stole my profits! You are basically upending the whole notion of "ownership" so that agreements mean nothing, and free exchange means nothing. The notion that a man who employs people, pays them what both agreed upon, and makes a profit, is somehow making "slaves" of them is morally degenerate. Your reliance upon "democracy" in the work-place is entirely misplaced. There is no "democracy" in private affairs. The Democratic process is the means we use to control the force of the state. It is not the means by which labor controls the business that employs it. You want to be the owner and management of the means of production. Then you need to buy you a company. That is the whole moral notion of "ownership" - that the person who "owns" the property gets to decide how it is used. You simply don't like the fact that the laborers do not own their company. But nothing is stopping them from creating a co-op company and owning it and working for it. Go right ahead! But notice that there aren't too many of those around, and there is a reason: because democratic control of the company by the workers doesn't usually work. But what you want is for the workers to seize control of the company that they do not own. That is theft. "You want all those things to be yours" - that is the definition of covetousness. You want what is not yours to have. I am sorry to hear of your personal troubles, but that does not give you the right to overthrow private ownership, steal trillions of dollars of assets from the rightful owners, INCLUDING MY HARD-WON ASSETS, to make your life safe. It really doesn't make that right. What you need to do is focus on solutions to your particular problems that don't require massive theft of other people's property, like mine. Please do not think that, because you have had problems, that makes it ok for you to take my property, that I earned fair and square, and didn't steal from anybody. Because if you do, that makes you a common thief. And for that, you should go to prison. JPH--
Letter #15
Greetings, again,
Examine, if you will, the history of the American Revolution. The Intolerable Acts, the Stamp Tax, the Quartering Act, the Boston Massacre -- these were some of the most serious objections to the rule of a British monarch. What was the peoples' reaction? Did they just say, "Oh, these are just a couple of examples of the monarchy oppressing us; it does nothing to revoke the infinite amount of benefits that we receive from enlightened monarchy." Take this oppression and exploitation, at the hands of monarchy, and then compare it to the violence and theft at the hands of Capitalism. In the Paris Commune of 1871, workers went on strike and the police were ordered to fire on them. In the end, how many of the workers and laborers do you think were killed? In an industrialized city of two million, over fifty thousand workers were killed, and thousands deported. [*1] The Boston Massacre took the lives of five, innocent people -- the people, afterwards, were thoroughly convinced that the British Monarchy was there to oppress and exploit them. But when Capitalists took the lives of fifty-thousand, organized laborers, you consider it "just an example of anti-union activity." Five dead convinced the colonists that monarchy did not consider their interests, nor did it protect them from oppression. Why is it, then, that fifty-thousand murdered by capitalists, isn't enough to think that Capitalism does not consider your interests? I have done everything I can to prove that Capitalist exploitation and oppression is the rule. I've given you at least ten or twenty incidents, each with their own citation. If you further doubt the historical validity of my argument, then please take a look at these books. They are a tremendous source of information and they clearly demonstrate the history I've been trying to express here. "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn, "How the Other Half Lives," by Jacob Riis, "Six Centuries of Work and Wages," by H.M. Hyndman, or "The Wealth of Nations," by Adam Smith. And beyond these, you can examine the German Peasants' War of 1524-1525, or the Chinese Peasant Rebellion against the Ming Dynasty in 1644. All of the history is at your fingertips. Five dead convinced Americans that British Monarchy was antagonistic to their interests. But millions dead will not convince you that Capitalist rule is antagonistic to our interests? And, besides all of that -- I'm the only one here who has offered any evidence whatsoever. You have only given me your opinion, and I'm not about to change my mind on that. What will I tell people when they ask me why I believe what I believe? "Well, I met some guy on the internet, and he sounded more intelligent than all the books at the library." The burden of proof is on the asserter; I have fulfilled this very thoroughly, and all the opinion in the world isn't going to shake my reason in evidence.
What makes me think that the Capitalist class would be interested in a collective bargaining agreement with the workers? Oh, I don't know -- only that they've signed thousands and thousands of similar collective agreements in the past? If you doubt this, about a thousand or so strikes are listed in the Wikipedia page: List of Strikes.
Even the slave benefits from an arrangement with his slavemaster, by receiving rations and provisions. But this is no justification for slavery. Allow me to draw an analogy. In the market, there are two people, and one is dependent on the other for their daily bread. The price is set at two dollars per loaf. When the customer says, "How about $1.75?" he is punched in the face by a guard. At any time he offers or tries to barter for his own economic good, he is attacked. The only time he is not attacked is when he doesn't question the price offered to him. When they make their agreement, then, it is not quite free. The person who accepts the $2 offer is doing it not out of free-contract; they are doing it because they are attacked any time they offer a low price. So, when we see this trade going on, are we really seeing a free-trade agreement, or are we seeing a relationship based on force, violence, and coercion? It's very simple to see: the future exchanges between the two may have used no force whatsoever. It is the memory of force, and the willingness of the Capitalist to use this force, that forces the individual to take the offer. To the outside individual, it appears free, but to the person accepting the offer, their actions are motivated out of the threat of force and violence. Likewise, we find the position of the working class today. Fifity-thousand killed in the Paris Commune, and only five dead by the British Monarchy? Sounds like workers have a great reason to be afraid of their own Capitalists. I already cited the 2002 case where violence and prisons were used to "motivate" workers into calling off their strike. This has been the way of the world for thousands of years -- the "invisible hand" has always been complimented with the "iron fist." The agreement to labor is taken, in fact, with a fervent knowledge of what has been done to strikers in the past; labor organizers are afraid in their own homes, district attorneys erroneously prosecute them as terrorists, and whenever anything gets too hot, the federal troops are called in. Those of us who want to organize and mobilize the workers -- we are very careful and cautious about the government, know its absolute brutality in favor of Capitalism. Back to my analogy, about the bread customer in the market -- would you say that this person is in a free-agreement? Would you see it, and say, "This is the type of freedom that I want my children to enjoy." ? From all that I can see, it would appear to be the least free of all social organizations, if only because it is oppression calling itself liberty.
Well, there are two people I can accuse. I can take the average citizen, who is exploited by business and oppressed by government. When they go to make their purchases, they are doing it with their wages. If only laborers could organize without state violence, then perhaps they would be able to afford a little more. And beyond this, all the mainstream media is owned and controlled by the Capitalist class. People virtually hear nothing about the world poverty levels, the amount of children in poverty in their own nation, or that conditions of the majority of the world's laborers. Yes, this is the average American -- alone, isolated, exploited, oppressed, and finally, completely ignorant about the world's conditions or what to do about it. On the other hand, there is the Capitalist class -- they spread lies in the media, they spend billions on political candidates, they rig elections in third worlds, fund and support covert military operations, and they even gave the Iranian Shah his power in Operation Ajax. Who, in fact, would you blame? The person who has the most to gain from the situation and who has the most power to change? Or the citizen who has so little to gain and possesses virtually no power to change it? I think the answer is easy: the Capitalist is who I blame. And, if your party opposes foreign labor, is it because you're appalled at the forced labor in the third world? Or because you want to create a mercantile economy in the US? Are you willing to ban all imports from nations that prohibit workers from organizing and free agreement?
That's what I love best. I offer you a nice, solid, concrete structure of evidence; and in return, I get a steaming, hot pile of opinion. I've quoted John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government," Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," and more than a handful of Enlightenment economists. Does having an opinion, but no theoretical knowledge, make you "qualified to discuss these matters intelligently"?
You mistake my position a bit. I do not want all those things to be mine -- I want all those things to be ours. Co-ops are not rare because of their alleged inefficiency. In economic terms, the phrase "Barrier to Entry" is used -- whether it is the desire for land and tools, for technology, for natural resources, or for markets controlled by collusion. All of these things necessarily prevent any upstart business, whether worker-managed or not; hence this is why many businesses end in only a few years of starting. Despite these setbacks, there are flourishing coop movements in Britain, France, Spain, Japan, and all over the world. The Mondragon Corporation in Spain or Suma Wholefoods in the United Kingdom. There are plenty of examples: Worker Cooperative ; Consumer Cooperative .
|
