I don't understand why some libertarians get bent out of shape about unions. These same libertarians oppose anti-trust laws and don't have a problem with businesses trying to drive up prices, but somehow its wrong for wage-earners to do the same thing.
Let's imagine a world devoid of regulations. There is no right-to-work or right-to-fire or right-to-unionize, and workers and management have to duke it out on their own without political intervention on either side. Fair enough.
We can imagine that for unskilled labor, there would be low wages, long hours, and no unions. The reason, of course, is that unskilled labor is easy to replace.
On the other hand, educated workers would have a lot of negotiating power, because they are difficult to replace. They could unionize, demand six-digit pay, go on strike whenever they choose, and the management could do nothing about it. Gotta pay off those college loans somehow, right?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.
John Ess: Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.
+1 Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept. I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: John Ess: Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply. +1 Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept. I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism.
Agreed. Bookchin's criticism of "lifestylism" in general is very interesting, even though I think he is incorrect in applying it to individualist anarchism.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Does anyone know what pro-union people(the type that believe corporations are evil and that without unions- jobs would be lost and pay serverely reduced to "slave wages")- think of the type of workers that WOULD work for a lower wage? Or their opinions on unions that try to limit the amount of workers? How can this reconcile with being pro-labor?
Woops. I meant to say he thought they were individualist (or for individual liberty) and they were not. Sorry for the misunderstanding. He was an 'individualist socialist.' Yeah, I don't understand that either!
These are two good links that the youtube user 'darganot' has put up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1l5KcoleE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNOusS8Hsk
John Ess: Nitroadict: John Ess: Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply. +1 Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept. I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism. Woops. I meant to say he thought they were individualist (or for individual liberty) and they were not. Sorry for the misunderstanding. He was an 'individualist socialist.' Yeah, I don't understand that either! These are two good links that the youtube user 'darganot' has put up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1l5KcoleE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNOusS8Hsk
D'oh! Now I'm confused... :(Despite the mix-up, Bookchin's analysis based on experience is still pretty valuable to derive counter-points to both those for & against unions.