News Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[Galteeth]

MassInertia,

thank you for the second link. It was very interesting to learn about "Pilot Project" of GE of workers self-management in 1968-1972.

After reading this, I was just thinking, is there a connection between May 1968 general strike in France when million workers went on strike and demanded self-management but not high wages and attempts of corporations just after that to introduce self-management in fear of such strikes maybe? I know that roughly in the same time other corporations try to do this, such as Volvo for example. But these attempts were abandoned latter.

So why don't we have democracy at work place? Why capitalists advocate for political democracy, but not democracy at working place that most people spent their lives? You article suggest that allowing workers self-management, even if it rises productivity, it will reduce power of capitalists over workers and therefore workers self-management is incompatible with capitalism.

Both left and right libertarians advocate more localized, decentralized control, but left wing libertarians come from the perspective that private property, especially in the form of the ownership class, is a construct enforced by the violence of the state, an arrangement that no one would agree to voluntarily. American libertarian traditions, unlike european ones, are much more rooted in right wing thinking, where private property is an essential right that one can morally defend with force. (This is different from some, but not all, right wing "anarchist" schools of thought.)

 

[MassInertia]

Rights, society, and myths are all in the realm of meaning. What meaning do we choose to give to various ideas. They are not in the realm of physics. There is no single true answer. They are a complex weave of stories/meanings/values we choose to hold. Choose to see the world through.

I will stick with natural rights as my personal arbitrary way of viewing the world.

But how are these "natural" rights to be enforced? They are enforced by institutions created by society, thus any right can only be granted by society.

Since I don't know if your irony is intentional or not, I must point out that "natural" rights cannot be arbitrary. In trying to argue for natural rights, you hit upon exactly why they cannot exist.

 

[MassInertia]

vici10,

I think you have a point about May '68. Though there are at least some workplaces that are democratic. Take the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain, for instance. They are a multi-billion dollar democratically run, worker owned and operated corporation that out competes traditional capitalistic corporations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/t...ooperatives-decide-how-to-ride-out-a-downturn

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3039

http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm

Homepage:
http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG.aspx

 

[vici10]

Yes, I have heard about Mondragon. It is very impressive. Especially, if one takes under consideration that within capitalist system workers cooperatives are in disadvantage, since they have limited access to credit. And capitalist economies are all run on credit.

 

[Galteeth]

But how are these "natural" rights to be enforced? They are enforced by institutions created by society, thus any right can only be granted by society.

Since I don't know if your irony is intentional or not, I must point out that "natural" rights cannot be arbitrary. In trying to argue for natural rights, you hit upon exactly why they cannot exist.

"Natural rights" is more of a metaphysical and political concept then an objective one. It is not "natural" like the laws of physics. It is like an axiom in a mathematical argument, a given taken when one is talking about political philosophy or morality (i.e, before we can discuss politics, there are certain fundamentals we must agree on, or discussion is pointless)

 

[MassInertia]

"Natural rights" is more of a metaphysical and political concept then an objective one. It is not "natural" like the laws of physics. It is like an axiom in a mathematical argument, a given taken when one is talking about political philosophy or morality (i.e, before we can discuss politics, there are certain fundamentals we must agree on, or discussion is pointless)

It is not like an axiom, and we do not have to agree on such a fundamental. Can we not speak of the divine right of kings? Can we not speak of the Hindu caste system? Natural rights certainly are spoken of as if they were an objective thing. Natural rights are an invention of the Enlightenment and are peculiar to modern Western culture. Sure they sound good, and I even like the concept, but the idea that natural rights are given to us by a "Creator" or Nature is a fiction.

 

[Sea Cow]

And the right to own property (like all rights) isn't granted by society. Another foundational tenet of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism.I don't want to be in any "system" involuntarily. This is just not that complicated.

Unless, like some, you are using the word "system" to refer to the lack of a system. Why do people do that?

We are all part of systems of exchange that allow us to obtain what we need from others and also allow us to pool our resources to produce collectively that which we cannot produce as individuals. Human beings are highly social animals that need to cooperate with others and depend on others. That's why our big brains developed as they did – to enable us to cooperate with each other, and cooperation requires systems.

What you appear to speak of is some kind of lack of established institutions or systems. Something akin to present-day Somalia. Is that what you want?

 

[Galteeth]

It is not like an axiom, and we do not have to agree on such a fundamental. Can we not speak of the divine right of kings? Can we not speak of the Hindu caste system? Natural rights certainly are spoken of as if they were an objective thing. Natural rights are an invention of the Enlightenment and are peculiar to modern Western culture. Sure they sound good, and I even like the concept, but the idea that natural rights are given to us by a "Creator" or Nature is a fiction.

You don't have to agree with the concept to understand it, I am explaining the context in which it is used. Ultimately, all moral or political philosophies rest upon a priori assumptions. This is because there is no such thing as objective morality, not in the sense that there are objective laws of physics. I don't think we are disagreeing here. It's like saying, "murder is wrong." You can say, well, prove that objectively. I can't. You simply accept it or you don't.

 

[Galteeth]

We are all part of systems of exchange that allow us to obtain what we need from others and also allow us to pool our resources to produce collectively that which we cannot produce as individuals. Human beings are highly social animals that need to cooperate with others and depend on others. That's why our big brains developed as they did – to enable us to cooperate with each other, and cooperation requires systems.

What you appear to speak of is some kind of lack of established institutions or systems. Something akin to present-day Somalia. Is that what you want?

There is a difference in the libertarian tradition between voluntary systems and involuntary or violently coerced ones. There are in fact, many coerciely enforced systems in Somalia (warlords who impose their rule upon sectors, etc.)

 

[Galteeth]

We are all part of systems of exchange that allow us to obtain what we need from others and also allow us to pool our resources to produce collectively that which we cannot produce as individuals. Human beings are highly social animals that need to cooperate with others and depend on others. That's why our big brains developed as they did – to enable us to cooperate with each other, and cooperation requires systems.

What you appear to speak of is some kind of lack of established institutions or systems. Something akin to present-day Somalia. Is that what you want?

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from Al's post. He stated he did not want to be in a system involuntarily. How does this equate to a lack of a system (which as you surely understand, is an incoherent concept)?

 

[Sea Cow]

There is a difference in the libertarian tradition between voluntary systems and involuntary or violently coerced ones. There are in fact, many coerciely enforced systems in Somalia (warlords who impose their rule upon sectors, etc.)

Of course there are. What nobody has managed to explain is how you can exist outside the system. Certain decisions are taken communally, except that anyone who disagrees with the decision is free to ignore it. Well, only if they then give up the privileges that belonging to the group confers.

 

[Sea Cow]

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from Al's post. He stated he did not want to be in a system involuntarily.

Well he is, and he has to be. He was born into it, and without it he would never have made it past the first few weeks of life.

 

[Galteeth]

Of course there are. What nobody has managed to explain is how you can exist outside the system. Certain decisions are taken communally, except that anyone who disagrees with the decision is free to ignore it. Well, only if they then give up the privileges that belonging to the group confers.

That's the idea. The "priveleges" may be worth co-operation, but co-operation is not forced through violence. An individual could try something else, or leave, etc.

 

[Galteeth]

Well he is, and he has to be. He was born into it, and without it he would never have made it past the first few weeks of life.

You're muddying concepts here. Obviously a child does not have the ability to make real choices. Obviously a person can't simply will reality to their liking. The specific idea being discussed here is co-operation with other human beings on the basis of the ultimate threat of violence (actually the topic is libertarian socialism, but we are currently discussing the difference between "socialism" in the common sense of usage, and the notion of "socialism" in "libertarian socialism".)

 

[Sea Cow]

Threat of exclusion from the group is, ultimately, the same as threat of violence. It is precisely what was practiced by the Inuit and others, for whom exclusion from the group meant death.

We are confusing terms a little here. The Spanish anarchists believed in decisions being taken from the bottom up – so each division in the army, each factory, each farm decides for itself how to run things. That didn't mean that individuals would have the right to refuse to comply with the decisions taken by their comrades. If you refuse to comply with the decisions of the factory workers, you are excluded from the factory and are no longer a factory worker! The 'right not to participate' is not some kind of dissenters' charter because membership of the group requires certain obligations to the group to be fulfilled. If you do not comply with the system, you are not allowed to continue as some kind of autonomous worker who doesn't fulfill the duties that the other workers have agreed to.

We need to make a clear distinction between this kind of 'left anarchism' and the Rand-style everyone for themselves kind of 'right anarchism', which is simply a charter for the strong to dominate the weak.

 

[Galteeth]

Threat of exclusion from the group is, ultimately, the same as threat of violence. It is precisely what was practiced by the Inuit and others, for whom exclusion from the group meant death.

No, it's not. This only applies at an extremely small scale of society, like, tribal. Even then, an individual might be able to survive by themselves. The Inuit are an extreme example, since they are a tribal society that lives in near arctic conditions.

In a diversified society, there are different groups, who contribute in different ways. Even a lone individual, if he is able to produce something of value, might be able to buck the conformity of a group (his trade might be more valuable then conformity).

 

[Galteeth]

We are confusing terms a little here. The Spanish anarchists believed in decisions being taken from the bottom up – so each division in the army, each factory, each farm decides for itself how to run things. That didn't mean that individuals would have the right to refuse to comply with the decisions taken by their comrades. If you refuse to comply with the decisions of the factory workers, you are excluded from the factory and are no longer a factory worker! The 'right not to participate' is not some kind of dissenters' charter because membership of the group requires certain obligations to the group to be fulfilled. If you do not comply with the system, you are not allowed to continue as some kind of autonomous worker who doesn't fulfill the duties that the other workers have agreed to.

We need to make a clear distinction between this kind of 'left anarchism' and the Rand-style everyone for themselves kind of 'right anarchism', which is simply a charter for the strong to dominate the weak.

I have been trying to make that distinction, my earlier posts were just introductory simplifications of a complex topic. Although i don't agree with your broad categorization, lumping objectivism with right anarchism (which itself is not a homogenous thing, there being a big difference between say, Mutualism, Spooner's Individualist anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism) and obviously your idea that it involves the strong preying on the weak (which I could understand in terms of anarcho-capitalism) when the central notion in most traditions is non-violence.

 

[Sea Cow]

"anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron. It irritates me when the word anarchism is misused like that.

Such types would have been fighting for Franco, not the Republic.

 

[Al68]

But how are these "natural" rights to be enforced? They are enforced by institutions created by society, thus any right can only be granted by society.

Based on that logic, my left hand was "granted" by government, since government protects me from those that want to cut it off. Even if you argue that my left hand would not now exist without government, that's just not what the word "granted" means.

Natural rights are those that could theoretically exist with or without such institutional enforcement, whether or not you believe the right is a legitimate one, or whether it would otherwise be recognized or protected.

The concept of natural rights, contrary to what is claimed in your link, is not simply a claim that there are some societal entitlements that exist naturally. It's an entirely different concept than that of an entitlement, which is created by contract.

 

[Sea Cow]

Natural rights are those that could theoretically exist with or without such institutional enforcement, whether or not you believe the right is a legitimate one, or whether it would otherwise be recognized or protected.

For example?

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

 

[madness]

Does anyone seriously believe that natural rights exist objectively as laws? Or do proponents simply mean that there is some universal human cultural rules which are always obeyed? To me the former seems ridiculous (more so than believing in God), whereas the latter is arguable but I'm not convinced.

 

[Galteeth]

For example?

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

Negative rights, as in, the right to life, as oppossed to say, the right to healthcare, which clearly requires an institution. Note the right to life does not mean the right to have everything necessary to live, rights are notions of social and moral relations, it ia rather the right to have no one interfere with one's own biological function of life.

 

[Sea Cow]

Right to life granted by whom?

 

[Char. Limit]

Right to life granted by whom?

By parents.

Come on, you can't honestly argue that the right to live is granted by the government. It's not even granted, you are born with it. I have the right to live. No one gave that to me. No one can take it away. (Murderers not included)

 

[Sea Cow]

The concept 'right to live' is meaningless to me.

 

[madness]

The way I see it rights are similar to laws (the legal ones). If we lived in anarchy there would be no rights (of course I'm not talking about the organised type of anarchy originally discussed in this thread).

 

[Al68]

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless? And it seems you are referring to the prerequisites for entitlements, not natural rights. Natural rights are simply not entitlements, as they are not the product of any contract or agreement, and require no action on the part of others as a prerequisite for existence.

Right to life granted by whom?

Unlike entitlements, rights are not "granted". I have never used the word "right" as a synonym for entitlement, although many do.

I fully realize that the words "right" and "entitlement" are used interchangeably today, but it's a shame, since we have two distinct concepts without an easy unambiguous way to distinguish between them verbally.

 

[Sea Cow]

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless?

No, the ideas you lay out here are meaningless.

 

[Al68]

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless?

No, the ideas you lay out here are meaningless.

OK, I'll bite. What idea have I laid out that wasn't a foundation of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism?

Are you unaware that the concept of natural rights was such a foundation, if not the primary one?

 

[Sea Cow]

This kind of use of the term rights appears to imply that such things exist independently of our minds. Where? "Rights" is a concept that can only exist in a mind. We exist in a universe, but meaning comes from us. Meaning is a property of minds.

You appear to be proposing some set of Platonic ideals that exist independently of us and are somehow 'out there' waiting for us to discover them. In a similar way, the mathematician Roger Penrose thinks of mathematics as having this kind of independent existence. But unless you can say something about where that 'out there' might be, it is simply a useless way of thinking that does not answer any questions you might want to ask.

Far better, more useful, and more close to the truth to think of such things as declarations of human rights as something that has come from us. It may be that such concepts echo deep truths about the universe. It would be surprising if they didn't, given that our minds are products of the universe. But they originate within us, and as far as we can know, we can only recognise them as such. Anything else is simply an appeal to divinity.