Mikä on WikiWiki?
nettipäiväkirja
koko wiki (etsi)
viime muutokset
I met a person (@bojidar_br@mastodon.social) in OpenFest Bulgaria with whom we had a short discussion about anarcho-libertarism and anarcho-syndicalism. I was going to publish this (with their permission) when we reach some kind of conclusion but as I've been busy lately it's probably better to have the discussion here in its current state.
It's a topic I've earlier been contemplating in this diary but in Finnish (valtio anarkismissa, anarkismi). The role of trade unions has been also commented (poliittinen ohjelma, tie orjuuteen). But well, this discussion features basically the essential argument as it was put forth by Hayek.
atehwa: Nice to meet! I'm also a programmer-musician combo :D But on the ideological side I come from an atheist family, and I'm on the anarcho-syndicalist side of the political spectrum. :D
bojidar: Aw, fancy meeting you too! Looking at the jam session here at openfest, programmer-musician is a popular combination - perhaps because both are rather mathematical in structure and maybe because of the use of keyboards I have a rather niche ideology myself... tho- I have no idea how anarcho-syndicalsm even works.. aren't unions (that monopsonize labor) and decentralization opposites?
atehwa: That's a very good question! There are answers on two levels.
First, trade unions need not be monopolies. For instance in Finland, many sectors have multiple trade unions to choose from. In anarcho-syndicalism, trade unions might be more of discussion fora and less of benefit negotiation.
Second, not having trade unions doesn't help anything to monopolisation. That's because capitalists (employers) have their own class consciousness anyway. It's also easier for the owning class to create class consciousness, because they are fewer (than workers) and they have more clearly distinct incentives.
So, we have to take it for granted that _employer_ unions exist anyway in a form or another. There's just no way to abolish them. And as long as they exist, workers also need unions to represent their interests.
This high level of organisation in the capitalist class is probably why no actual society was ground to a halt by trade unions. The trade unions already have their antipole, and so they represent, instead of a monopoly, a negotiating party in a conflict of interests.
bojidar: Hmm.. to my libertarian mind, unions are always monopolies, and monopolies are always established by bad laws. So.. when I say that I find them incompatible with anarchism, it's precisely that form of unions I am against - the unions where a government has passed a law that makes it illegal for a business, small or large, to hire who they please. But.. I can see that you mean something else by "union" .. perhaps something similar to a workers cooperative, from what I can understand?
Collusion between employers is exceedingly common, indeed. The typical free-market reply to it is that such collusion is unstable in the long term and will fall apart once new employers, seeing the opportunity afforded by undervalued labor, enter the market--a bit slow perhaps, but it does avoid the risk of overregulation - new laws passed to paper over problems caused by old laws. And that's why we are wary of bad laws - IP, etc. - that make it harder for new employers to enter.
That said, trade unions can help steer workers to better, less-collusive employers faster than job boards and such. So there's certainly value in having those!
atehwa: As for unions, let me just say that I agree with what you've said. I'll comment on some details later on.