Daily Anarchist Forum
May 06, 2021, 11:17:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: QS2:RAQ2:AFAQ  (Read 3248 times)
Mr.Mister
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 64


True Capitalism is a Hellish road to Heaven


View Profile
« on: October 28, 2014, 09:54:23 PM »

DON'T worry about how long this one is; it's basically just ONE idea, not a plethora  of them.

If you manage to debunk it then, well...I'll be extremely impressed.

Good Luck!

"The right-"libertarian" either does not acknowledge or dismisses as irrelevant the fact that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a very selective and class-based protection of "rights" and "freedoms." For example, under capitalism, the "freedom" of employers inevitably conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders or their managers exercise their "freedom of enterprise" to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employee's right to decide how their labouring capacities will be utilised and so under capitalism the "property rights" of employers will conflict with and restrict the "human right" of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism allows the right of self-management only to the few, not to all. Or, alternatively, capitalism does not recognise certain human rights as universal which anarchism does.

This can be seen from Austrian Economist W. Duncan Reekie's defence of wage labour. While referring to "intra-firm labour markets" as "hierarchies", Reekie (in his best ex cathedra tone) states that "[t]here is nothing authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract." [Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty, p. 136 and p. 137]. Given that "the terms of contract" involve the worker agreeing to obey the employers orders and that they will be fired if they do not, its pretty clear that the ordering that goes on in the "intra-firm labour market" is decidedly one way. Bosses have the power, workers are paid to obey. And this begs the question: if the employment contract creates a free worker, why must she abandon her liberty during work hours?

Reekie actually recognises this lack of freedom in a "round about" way when he notes that "employees in a firm at any level in the hierarchy can exercise an entrepreneurial role. The area within which that role can be carried out increases the more authority the employee has." [Op. Cit., p. 142] Which means workers are subject to control from above which restricts the activities they are allowed to do and so they are not free to act, make decisions, participate in the plans of the organisation, to create the future and so forth within working hours. And it is strange that while recognising the firm as a hierarchy, Reekie tries to deny that it is authoritarian or dictatorial -- as if you could have a hierarchy without authoritarian structures or an unelected person in authority who is not a dictator. His confusion is shared by Austrian guru Ludwig von Mises, who asserted that the "entrepreneur and capitalist are not irresponsible autocrats" because they are "unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumer" while, on the next page, admitting there was a "managerial hierarchy" which contains "the average subordinate employee." [Human Action, p. 809 and p. 810] It does not enter his mind that the capitalist may be subject to some consumer control while being an autocrat to their subordinated employees. Again, we find the right-"libertarian" acknowledging that the capitalist managerial structure is a hierarchy and workers are subordinated while denying it is autocratic to the workers! Thus we have "free" workers within a relationship distinctly lacking freedom -- a strange paradox. Indeed, if your personal life were as closely monitored and regulated as the work life of millions of people across the world, you would rightly consider it the worse form of oppression and tyranny."
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2014, 11:39:50 PM »

Well, the main thing in that rant is the focus on the employer-employee relationship, and that the hierarchical structure exists in most businesses.  As I said before, hierarchy isn't inherently bad--it's only bad when it's coercive, and the left-anarchists haven't shown that the employer-employee relationship is, in fact, coercive.  They just assume that since the employee is doing productive labor, then the employee should be able to do it in any way they want, forgetting that the materials and tools are provided by the employer. 

The most important point in the employer-employee relationship is that it is a voluntary, contractual arrangement. The employer agrees to provide the materials and tools for the employee to use, and the employee agrees to provide the labor necessary to use the materials and tools into making a product or service.  If it's not mutually agreeable, then employer would look for someone else to be an employee, and the employee would look for someone else to be their employer.  This is simply a matter of contract and freedom of association.

Of course there are other facets related to this, if I want to stretch it out. For example, that there are limits to the so-called "absolute" right of property, or that in a market economy, it's easier to change roles, especially where government regulations don't exist as barriers to competition.  Thus an employee might decide to become an employer.  Or, because there's more competition, employees are in a better bargaining position with employers and can arrange for better terms.  This is already true with respect to high-skilled employees, but even low-skilled employees benefit from more employer competition.  And any good businessman knows that good morale helps with employee productivity and thus helps their bottom line.

But it's late, and I think I've tackled the main point well enough.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Mr.Mister
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 64


True Capitalism is a Hellish road to Heaven


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2014, 11:51:05 PM »

Indeed you have. Thanks, Macsnafu.
Logged
anarchoguitarist
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2014, 09:42:31 PM »

His confusion is shared by Austrian guru Ludwig von Mises, who asserted that the "entrepreneur and capitalist are not irresponsible autocrats" because they are "unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumer" while, on the next page, admitting there was a "managerial hierarchy" which contains "the average subordinate employee." [Human Action, p. 809 and p. 810]

The only confusion here comes from the leftist author of this paragraph, not Ludwig Von Mises. The leftist only reveals the fact that he does not understand economics when he thinks there is a contradiction between "a capitalist subject to the consumer" and an employee who voluntarily subordinates himself to a managerial hierarchy. As macsnafu has already indicated, there is nothing wrong with a hierarchy as long as it is voluntary.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!