They were definitely socialists in a lot of respects. That’s why I have no faith in left-libertarians.
Idk… Tucker had some great ideas that make for wonderful critiques of the state and of the mainstream view of history:
The Many Monopolies
So what? Tucker was openly pro-socialism. Carson is a modern-day tuckerite and he openly calls himself a socialist AND claims mutualists and left-libertarians are socialist.
http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html
Tucker’s critique of monopolies is decent but it’s been said better by austrians. And I don’t see how private property is a “land monopoly” unless the state protects it.
Did you even read the article?
“What workers before the factory is built, Pony? Where do you find these people, and why would they build a factory if they could lose it? You haven’t changed the fact that this factory has to be owned, you’ve just pointed to an imaginary group of God-knows how many people who would own this factory, and failed to answer the basic question…”
Now I just don’t know what you mean by “they could lose it.” I assume you’re not referring to the general risk taking of any enterprise, as that’s never an economic guarantee. So then my next thought is that you’re returning to the caricatured view that if someone leaves a home in their possession for the night, then squatters will run in and become the owners.
Or there’s the possibility that you just cannot comprehend an ownership scheme without a mini king of the property.
BP, in a system where the means of production are owned by the workers, how do you decide how many workers are “enough.”
Say Bill Gates sponsors a factory and then his workers take it over and Bill Gates goes away. Now, there are, say, 10 people in the factory, so they use democracy to decide on rules for the factory. What if another worker comes along and wants to work in the factory? Do the 10 people have the right to keep him out?
“But it would. In a free market labour would tend towards getting the full value of it’s product discounted by time preference (DMVP). I don’t think Tucker would have suddenly became a Marxist if he had come to an understanding of Austrian economics. The main difference between Tucker-Spooner and Rothbard was land titles, and even there Rothbard said that the property rights Tucker-Spooner envisioned were infintely superior to the current system.”
Let’s be clear: no anarchist was a Marxist at Tucker’s time. They were still bitter over the first International. Post-marxism and anti-authoritarian Marxism are products of the second half of the 20th century.
I can’t speak to Tucker so much, as he stayed pretty consistent the rest of his life except for becoming more of an egoist, but based on DeCleyre’s turn, it’s really hard to say someone so pro-labor would have stuck with it. In fact, a Voltarine DeCleyre quote best explains my thoughts on it.
““the stubborn fact always came up that no man would employ another to work for him unless he could get more for his product than he had to pay for it, and that being the case, the inevitable course of exchange and re-exchange would be that the man having received less than the full amount, could buy back less than the full amount, so that eventually the unsold products must again accumulate in the capitalist’s hands; and again the period of non-employment arrives.””
"BP, in a system where the means of production are owned by the workers, how do you decide how many workers are “enough.”
Say Bill Gates sponsors a factory and then his workers take it over and Bill Gates goes away. Now, there are, say, 10 people in the factory, so they use democracy to decide on rules for the factory. What if another worker comes along and wants to work in the factory? Do the 10 people have the right to keep him out?"
I don’t purport to know. Let those running the factory decide if they need more, could find use in more, or even want more workers.
Let those running the factory decide if they need more, could find use in more, or even want more workers.
So you are answering “yes, the 10 workers have the right to keep him out”, correct?
When it seems this trivial, sure.
Hey, I wasn’t sure what you meant. Could have been 19th cent for all I know. And as to my second question?
I just fixed the one. That was my answer to the second question.
Alright, so you are saying that once there has been some involvement of workers with a factory, they gain control over it and may exclude others. Correct?
What I’m saying is that “worker’s owning a factory” and “excluding others” are broad enough that it would sound ridiculous to say anything else. If there’s just a group of worker’s running a factory, and someone wants a job there, it’s obviously up to them whether or not they work there.
Wheylous, I’ve said yes. If you have a response, go ahead an say it.
Could these workers keep exclusive control of the factory but allow others to work there without giving them a vote?
So the people who took over the factory of Bill Gates decide that there could be an extra person squeezed in, but want to retain control over the affairs. Could they ethically allow the new man to voluntarily work there while making it clear that he has no vote that has any authoritative power?
That seems to run counter to occ/use, and I would say no.
I changed the post slightly. You still say no?
I think this is an interesting question. If the workers can exclude additional workers, then it could theoretically be a means of reintroducing wage labor, since they could make it a condition that new workers receive less than their full product. I know one of the criticisms of the Yugoslav “co-ops” was that they wouldn’t bring in additional workers, since they had nothing to gain by doing so. Of course these were nothing like mutualist co-ops.
So FotH, you do not think they can exclude others?