Is it Anarchy worth promoting? Should we even support it anymore?

[Phuein]

I often use the word "voluntarism" because it seems more descriptive of my ideals than "anarchism."  Anarchism describes what I don't want (rulers), and voluntarism describes what I do want (strictly voluntary transactions).  That way, I also circumvent the infamous "what about the roads!" type arguments and hone right in on the morality of the proposition.

 

The comments about voluntarism, which I agree with, moved me to consider, why it is that I don't call myself a Voluntarist; even though it is a part of my ideology.

 

Let me give an example, of why I rather call myself an Anarchist, or a Freedom Idealist, than a Voluntarist.

 

There's a difference between paying someone for a material (well-defined) purpose, and paying someone for an abstract (vaguely-defined) purpose. A material purpose, say, fixing a toilet, and an abstract purpose, say, a month of my time as an employee, in a very generally defined job, say, a clerk.

 

• When I get paid to fix a toilet, an agreement is made about how the toilet should work, and what payment I expect; with some negotiable leeway, in regards to unexpected problems that may arise. I fix the toilet, I get the money, and we move on with life.

 

• When I get paid to become a clerk, an agreement is made about some of the proficiencies that are expected of me, the hours and days I am expected to work, and often, also, how I should appear and behave, during working time; including what rest breaks I will enjoy. I am generally expected to obey anything that I am commanded, that is not outside of the "social norm", which is yet another vague condition. I only get paid after the allotted time is through, so it is in the employer's interest to get me to work as hard as possible, during that time. This is especially the case, for part time jobs, where that month is likely to be the only month of the contract.

 

It is evident, from my experience, that most jobs are bad. Most employers are uneducated and abusive people. Of course, without the state holding up all the lands as hostage, I might as well be a free farmer. But, even if that were the case, any notion of employment that required me to sign up for an allotted period of time with vaguely defined working terms, which might as well say, "Obey my commands," would be out of the question. It is, at its' best, prostitution, to sell my time to another person, without being entirely specific about how that time will be used.

 

Ever heard of secretaries and clerks making coffee for the boss, even though it's not in the contract? Yeah...

 

And this is a social problem that Voluntarism does not solve. This entire situation is voluntary. However, it is wrong, because it leads to wage-slavery. However, within the Anarchist ideology, the idea that any person can command me, even by contract and voluntarily, is unacceptable, and would never be part of the social norm!

[J. D. Stembal]

Are you arguing that kissing your boss's ass at work is not voluntary? Indeed, it is voluntary. You are perfectly free to let someone else do it or flatly refuse to fetch him his coffee. Honestly, who treats people like a glorified barista in an office building these days? That's why we have the Starbuck's business model.

 

We have all been shit on at work before, and it's nothing unusual. You bitch, get fed up, quit, or get fired and move on. If you are not willing to do this, you could end up like this old friend of mine who has worked for the same family owned company for 11 years, forever getting passed up for raises. His goal is to get the owner thrown in jail, and has tried to report him for tax evasion (failed), labor union violations (succeeded), and is now hoping to have a "goodfella" intimidate him gangland style. Yeah, good luck with that one.

[cynicist]

Are you arguing that kissing your boss's ass at work is not voluntary? Indeed, it is voluntary. You are perfectly free to let someone else do it or flatly refuse to fetch him his coffee. Honestly, who treats people like a glorified barista in an office building these days? That's why we have the Starbuck's business model.

 

We have all been shit on at work before, and it's nothing unusual. You bitch, get fed up, quit, or get fired and move on. If you are not willing to do this, you could end up like this old friend of mine who has worked for the same family owned company for 11 years, forever getting passed up for raises. His goal is to get the owner thrown in jail, and has tried to report him for tax evasion (failed), labor union violations (succeeded), and is now hoping to have a "goodfella" intimidate him gangland style. Yeah, good luck with that one.

 

Thank you. I'm sick of these 'wage-slave' arguments. There is absolutely no such thing. You can work for a voluntary wage or you can be enslaved, and no, hating your job is not the same as being forced to do anything. If your terms of employment are vague, get clarification. If you don't like a particular responsibility at your job, then either explain that you won't do it or find a new job. I've refused certain things without being fired but yeah, if you just do everything you are told then people will abuse the hell out of that. That's the sad state of the world today.

 

I wish robots did my laundry but while I wait for Google to get around to that I'm not going to complain that I'm forced to fold clothing...

[NameName]

If you don't like a particular responsibility at your job, then either explain that you won't do it or find a new job. I've refused certain things without being fired but yeah, if you just do everything you are told then people will abuse the hell out of that. 

 

I understand and agree with what you said. However it becomes very difficult to do so in practice. Typically, you receive extra minor responsibilities. For example if you worked in the bakery of a grocery store, your boss might say "Oh and can you sweep the main floor", after that "Go to grocery and help with this", eventually they all build up and you are working another persons job in addition to your own. So the way to prevent this would be to reject these small activities upfront. But when your boss asks something small that's extra and you refuse, you look like a disobedient slacker.

 

It would be much easier if your boss desired to add a large responsibility to your workload and you could refuse that. But refusing small tasks makes you look bad.

[Andrew79]

Most employers are uneducated and abusive people.

And yet they're smart enough that they're the boss and you're the worker.Most employees don't have the slightest clue what it takes to run a business. They're not aware of the sacrifices the boss will have made in order to keep the business going and pay his employees.If you're not willing to get someone a drink because it's not specifically in your contract, the chances you've got the attitude and ability to run your own business are roughly zero.And as for "wage-slavery", if you're not free to sell your labour, you're not free. You can't tell people they own 100% of their labour but that they can't sell it. That's not ownership and it's certainly not freedom."The greatest trick the socialists ever pulled was convincing the world they want freedom for the little guy."

[SamuelS]

For example if you worked in the bakery of a grocery store, your boss might say "Oh and can you sweep the main floor", after that "Go to grocery and help with this", eventually they all build up and you are working another persons job in addition to your own.

if it's an hourly job, can you really complain that they're keeping you busy?

[NameName]

if it's an hourly job, can you really complain that they're keeping you busy?

 

Well, yes.

 

I used to work at the back of an Italian restaurant doing dishes, it was an incredibly hard job as it was because I was the only dishwasher and was crazy busy. But during really vusy periods, other people would pile their work onto me. People making pizzas who used to get the dough themselves, now became my job to get it. People battering the wings now became my job. And all sorts of other stuff which made my job physically impossible. There was constant failure as a result of the impossibility of all my tasks. And all this for minimum wage, I quit.

 

My point is that yes, yes you can complain.

[Slavik]

Well, yes.

 

I used to work at the back of an Italian restaurant doing dishes, it was an incredibly hard job as it was because I was the only dishwasher and was crazy busy. But during really vusy periods, other people would pile their work onto me. People making pizzas who used to get the dough themselves, now became my job to get it. People battering the wings now became my job. And all sorts of other stuff which made my job physically impossible. There was constant failure as a result of the impossibility of all my tasks. And all this for minimum wage, I quit.

 

My point is that yes, yes you can complain.

Hey Massive, sorry to hear about the crap you had to go through, there are indeed many bad managers out there.  To the points you made, I agree indeed you can complain, OR, you can compile a small presentation showing the inefficiency in their practice of overworking you, or rather inefficiency in not dividing the labor.  The drop of quality thus profits.  I am not saying that the presentation would have worked, you might even have been let go as the result of it, but the idea would have set you on a different path, to find inefficiencies and providing solutions.  The reason many people do not like complaining, is because complaining points out a possible problem and gives no solutions.

[SamuelS]

I imagine that had to be frustrating to have more work than you could feasibly get done. The bakery scenario was what I was referring to, didn't sound nearly as unreasonable.

[NameName]

Hey Massive, sorry to hear about the crap you had to go through, there are indeed many bad managers out there.  To the points you made, I agree indeed you can complain, OR, you can compile a small presentation showing the inefficiency in their practice of overworking you, or rather inefficiency in not dividing the labor.  The drop of quality thus profits.  I am not saying that the presentation would have worked, you might even have been let go as the result of it, but the idea would have set you on a different path, to find inefficiencies and providing solutions.  The reason many people do not like complaining, is because complaining points out a possible problem and gives no solutions.

 

Good thinking, I think a respectable employer would value an employee seeking to make work more efficient. Thanks

 

I imagine that had to be frustrating to have more work than you could feasibly get done. The bakery scenario was what I was referring to, didn't sound nearly as unreasonable.

 

I apologize on my part for the confusion, thank you.

[Phuein]

It's very annoying, when responses say things about me that are clearly the opposite of what I wrote. 

 

Are you arguing that kissing your boss's ass at work is not voluntary?

 

Even though I said

 

This entire situation is voluntary.

 

And again:

 

And as for "wage-slavery", if you're not free to sell your labour, you're not free.

 

While I clearly gave an example of selling my labour that I find consistent with Anarchism and freedom:

 

• When I get paid to fix a toilet, an agreement is made about how the toilet should work, and what payment I expect; with some negotiable leeway, in regards to unexpected problems that may arise. I fix the toilet, I get the money, and we move on with life.

 

 

I understand that there is an automatic defensive reaction, when it comes to any argument that sounds even slightly socialistic.   Yes, socialism, as an ideology, doesn't cut it logically - and is bad. However, this does not mean that everything about the market is right and fair. For example, no modern and educated person would ever argue that making a working contract with a 10 year old kid is equal to making a working contract with an adult. Today, there is agreement that kids are generally the responsibility of their parents, and so cannot sensibly be individually responsible for agreeing to a contract.

 

Does this make child employment wrong? No. But, it does show where faults can be found within a free market, wherever other social functions become, well, dysfunctional. Predators will prey, and when parents fail, it is the responsibility of society to take over. Right?

[AustinJames]

Does this make child employment wrong? No. But, it does show where faults can be found within a free market, wherever other social functions become, well, dysfunctional. Predators will prey, and when parents fail, it is the responsibility of society to take over. Right?

 

 

It is difficult to argue this instance of moral responsibility in regard to children.  If my neighbor fails to raise their child well, am I morally responsible to compensate for this?

[StylesGrant]

Muckraking journalism.

 

Show them journalism about lobbyist, donor contribution, war, pharmaceuticals killing people, children especially, farmers being harassed by feds, drug busts by swat team and feds on marijuana, Israel/Palestine, Zuckerburg's selling people out to private security contractors and the fed, corrupt tsars, corrupt board directors, revolving door, corrupt higher education, corrupt deans, corrupt think tanks, corrupt research grant programs, corruption in licensure with state boards, corruption and statistical fraud in patents and peer-reviewed papers, corrupt court citations, corrupt financial interest with supreme court justices, listen to Max Keiser talk about corrupt bankers.

 

Basically get people solid real world examples of authoritarianism, croynism, classism, and clear cases of the misuse of taxes, the counterfeiting of currency, the type of wielding and dealing of power where those who run it don't have to answer to it. This will make people primed and ready to solid philosophical explanations. Real example + philosophical theory = Oh holy shit let's get the hell out of this system.

[Andrew79]

It's very annoying, when responses say things about me that are clearly the opposite of what I wrote.

Evidently what you wrote wasn't that clear.  

Even though I said

The next sentence is needed to provide context, what you said was "This entire situation is voluntary. However, it is wrong, because it leads to wage-slavery."You very clearly introduced the concept of voluntary employment leading to a form of slavery. Which is complete nonsense. 

While I clearly gave an example of selling my labour that I find consistent with Anarchism and freedom:

That's essentially the difference between a freelancer and an employee.If you don't like working for someone else, then don't. I didn't like it, so I set up on my own. But I'm not going to tell anyone else what to do, or what the right way to work is.Anarchism and freedom are about the lack of coercion, your personal preference is relevant only to yourself. 

However, this does not mean that everything about the market is right and fair.

No serious advocate of the free market claims it is perfect.If you have a better system please start a new thread on it... 

For example, no modern and educated person would ever argue that making a working contract with a 10 year old kid is equal to making a working contract with an adult.

"Won't somebody please think of the children?"Can bad things happen in a free market? Of course. And again, no serious advocate claims everything would be perfect. The idea of utopia comes from socialism, not capitalism.And in today's world, in the UK and US at least, children are forced to spend years at school regardless of whether they want to or their parents want them to. So trying to use them as an emotional attack against the free market is laughable."What if..." scenarios are easy, if you've got an actual argument against the free market, state it. 

Predators will prey, and when parents fail, it is the responsibility of society to take over. Right?

I don't know what you mean by this.

[J. D. Stembal]

I am sorry, Phuein, but maybe I am misunderstanding your position and not realizing it. I don't see any fundamental difference in the voluntary nature between fixing a toilet for money and agreeing to clerk a store for money. What if you agree to fix my toilet, and then before I pay you, I also ask you to sell a bunch of stuff I want to get rid of on Craigslist for me? Surely, you would say no, because the agreement involved a toilet and nothing else.

 

Similarly, if you are hired as a store clerk, and one day the store owner asks you to unclog and clean the toilet, you could refuse. If it was a small business, and you are cleaning the toilet every day in the normal course of your job, you would have been told beforehand that it was expected of you. In either of the previous circumstances you can reasonably refuse to do the work, but you can't continue to not do a job that is expected of you and still get paid without making a pretty airtight case to the customer or boss. Yes, you may get canned or that customer may decide to never call you again as a handyman, but that's the price of having self-respect. Many will look for a way to trick you into doing a task you didn't agree to do or don't want to do free of charge. Just don't do it. That is voluntarism.

 

I made fun of the coffee example on purpose. When was the last time you saw the head manager in an office building commanding his underlings to fetch him his coffee? As I understand it, this happens on military bases all the time, but anyone of sane mind (military personnel are excluded) would laugh at him. You might be asked to make a coffee, as a favor, but why can't you politely decline to do so?

[Phuein]

The next sentence is needed to provide context, what you said was "This entire situation is voluntary. However, it is wrong, because it leads to wage-slavery."You very clearly introduced the concept of voluntary employment leading to a form of slavery. Which is complete nonsense.

 

And that's where we stand apart. So, let me try an example. 

 

Slavery is defined as many things, but it is, in part, defined as "the condition of being owned by another person." My argument is that even if the working agreement is voluntary, unlike enforced slavery, it may still be slavery, in practice. This happens under either condition:

 

1. Employment under a state. The state holds all land as hostage, and so all people must find employment under others, in order to sustain themselves. This is definitely a situation of coercion, even though people sign-up "voluntarily" into working contracts.

 

2. Free dependent employment, or just general dependency. If I employ a parent, then they and their children will become dependent on this income, especially as time goes on. Knowing this, and even though my employee voluntarily agreed to the original working conditions, I am able to change their working conditions, without dissent, because losing this job might mean risking their children's well-being. This would be abusive and terrible behavior on my part, but in a strictly Voluntary society, this must be accepted behavior. Because it is entirely voluntary.

 

 

Can bad things happen in a free market? Of course. 

 

And I am by no means saying that there should be something else, instead of the free market. I dislike your cynicism, in telling me to "please start a new thread on it..." I never said that the free market is all wrong, nor that it must be perfect, nor that it should be replaced, at all...

 

 

It is difficult to argue this instance of moral responsibility in regard to children.  If my neighbor fails to raise their child well, am I morally responsible to compensate for this?

 

Which leads to my conclusion, which is both incomplete and short, but should not have been ignored. I said, "this is a social problem," and mentioned the social norm. My meaning is that the free market only functions as free, when the host society functions as a free society. An anarchic society. And when the host society is voluntary, but not necessarily anarchic, then it is evident that great abuse of this partially free condition will ensue, as we can see in our own already partially free societies.

 

Society is not any person. If a child is abused by their parents, then, other than the parents, no one else is responsible for the well-being of that child. This is a case of public well-being, like cleaning up drift-wood or snow between houses and towns, for the benefit of all; even though no one specifically is responsible for it. A free society will always have a place for beneficial discussions of such public issues, which will address such issues to the best of their ability. We have evidence for this in small communities, where these issues tend to get worked out through social pressure and personal tradeoffs. 

[Andrew79]

And that's where we stand apart. So, let me try an example.

To live you must consume, and to consume you must produce.Oppressed by natureWhile the state might make going self-employed or self-dependent or whatever harder than it otherwise might be, it doesn't make it impossible. And not everyone wants to go into business for themselves, even if given a completely free choice many would rather work for someone else because it's easier and less risky.So while people have a reasonably free choice over how they produce there is no slavery.Sure, you can change their working conditions, lower their pay, become a tyrant, and so on. But they can leave. Ultimately it's not you that sets those things, but the market. 

I dislike your cynicism

The more I engage with people about politics, the more cynical I become. And that's especially true when after pointing out someone's use of "Won't somebody please think of the children?" they go and do the same thing again in their very next post.