I think GS hit the nail on the head when he refered to a union as a cartel on labour.
A single business cannot be considered a cartel. A cartel is, by definition, a group of businesses which agree to fix prices and quotas but maintain their independence from one another. If a group of businesses agree to some arangement and to give up their own independence, this is known as merger, not cartelization.
Now if a group of workers agree to price fix prices and quotas, for their labour, this is the same thing as labour cartelization. The same analysis that applies to cartels in the case of firms also applies to cartels in the case of labour. If they try to earn an above market revenue by restricting their labour supply, they face internal and external pressure. Workers who are members of the union have an incentive to break their agreement and sell their labour at a slightly lower price to raise the demand for their labour and increase their revenue. And other workers have an incentive to enter the market and earn more in this market than in others. This will tend to rive the wage rate back to equilibrium. And if a union can’t earn it’s members an above market wage (in the free market anyway), why would they come into existance?
This whole post is entirely irrelevant. Whether unions would be preferable in a free society is completely besides the point. Someone claimed that Rothbard wouldn’t support unions, which is absolutely ridiculous. That’s where the union discussion started, and it ended quite some time ago when unions were proved to be nothing more than a voluntary organization of free people.
Well, if we take Marx’s, Mises’, Rothbard’s, Hoppe’s definition of socialism, the economic system under which there is social (collective) contol over factors of production, a reasonable default definition if no other one is given, then it is impossible to allocate factors of production rationally. Since factors are not privately owned under socialism, there are no market prices for the factors and it is impossible to evaluate the opportunity costs of various using the factors in alternative lines of production. So his proposition makes perfect sense and he is just using the generally accepted meaning of socialism.
My point is that they generally do not exist absent state privilege. I think that Rothbard would have probably considered a voluntary union in a free market to be some kind of gang of troublemakers the same way he considered the black panthers a gang of trouble makers. What other purpose could they possibly serve other that to beat up on innocent ppl, namely employers who don’t go along with their demands, and workers who don’t have the right amount of ‘solidarity’?
If there is no peaceful, productive reason to have them around, why exactly would he be in favour of them?
I said I think they would mass-fire in most cases. But I dont see why businesses would tolerate unions, as their almost sole purpose is to demand more at the expense of the business that is giving them a job.
Without some kind of coercion, there isn’t social (state, central) control over factors of production, and you don’t have socialism. Socialism is by definition, the generally accepted, uncontrovertial definition among economists including Marx, anti-liberty for original appropriators/producers. So what if you have a different one? It should be obvious what he meant.
Then it is you who is wrong. Rothbard may have not supported unions using state power as a means to their end, but he certainly supported unions. Unless, of course, you’re accusing Rothbard of being a statist.
You’re just using your own definition of socialism as a blanket term. Not all people who call themselves socialists advocate state control of anything. At a basic level, all socialism means is cooperatives and worker’s control. Worker’s control /= state control. In the context of libertarianism, cooperatives and worker’s control of something is a possibility, as are specific cases or areas of common property. So you are simply incorrect to not recognize a distinction between voluntary socialism and authoritarian socialism. Even Walter Block has aknowledged this distinction to a degree, and he isn’t a left-libertarian. You should very well know that when a left-libertarian moderates their position on socialism’s compatability with libertarianism, it has to do with anti-state socialism. It is highly disingenous to continue making a conflation between anti-state socialism and authoritarian socialism, it is no more honest or rational than conflating neo-mercantalism with free markets.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse! I said, nor implied, any such thing. However I can find no evidence he supported even a ‘non statist’ union.
What’s the difference between a cooperative and a corporation whose shareholders are also solely its employees? And if workers have control, shouldn’t they have the right to sell it to capitalists who have a lower time-preference? If the socialism is voluntary, then factor owners still retain control over factors of production, and this is also called capitalism. I think it’s better to just assume that what is meant by social, central, or collective control, is aggressive social, central, or collective control. This makes a clear cut distinction between socialism and capitalism. And it’s uncontrovertial. I guess socialism, doesn’t necessarilly mean state or central control of production. But that’s how it is generally understood by economists and political philosophers, so why try to reinvent it into something else?
I’m not reinventing anything, I’m aknowledging the existance of a multi-century old tradition within socialism and anarchism. Mainstream political categorizations are misleading package deals.
What’s with the obsession with ‘disingenuous’? And how am I being disingenuous exactly? How am I conflating? I’m just using the standard definition of the work socialism.
Yes.Unions in a stateless society are nothing more than a voluntary association of free individuals. To oppose voluntary association of free individuals would force you to support a coercive institution to stop these people from voluntarily associating. An anarchist certainly could not support this coercive institution(the state), and therefore MUST support unions. Rothbard was an anarchist, ergo he supported unions.To refute this, you must either reject my premise(that Rothbard was an anarchist), or reject the rationale that lead me to my conclusion(Rothbard supported unions).
Go.
To sicsempertyrannis: I never said you did. I’m pointing out that to claim that Rothbard did not support unions is the same as claiming Rothbard was a statist.
I don’t think that “[An anarchist] MUST support unions.” follows from “An anarchist certainly could not support the state.” It seems that one can oppose both the state and unions, just like one can oppose both the state and gangs or both gangs and unions.