Roderick Long, Questions and Answers on Workplace Democracy
The Past and Future of the Libertarian Left: SFL Virtual Reading Group (Fall 2014) online reading list
VRG Reader: Markets Not Capitalism
- Charles Johnson and Gary Chartier (eds.), Markets Not Capitalism, 1st ed. (Minor Compositions: 2011) will be the source for most of the readings in our VRG. You can obtain a copy directly from the publishers, or from the usual online bookstores. You can also read it online if you don’t mind giant PDF blobs.
In addition to the readings from Markets Not Capitalism, there will be a number of additional primary and supplementary readings that we will discuss to give more in-depth treatments to particular topics and offer additional context. Readings that aren’t in Markets Not Capitalism will be made available online. Here are links to the additional readings throughout the VRG.
Session 3: A Question of Ownership.
- Murray N. Rothbard (1969), Massacre at People’s Park, in The Libertarian Forum I.VI (June 15, 1969). 1. (PDF at Mises.org)
Session 4: A Question of Knowledge.
F.A. Hayek (1945), The Use of Knowledge in Society in American Economic Review XXXV.4 (Sep. 1945). 519-30. (HTML at EconLib).
Nathan Goodman (2013), The Knowledge Problem of Privilege, at Liberty Minded (July 29, 2013)
Session 5: A Question of Scale.
- Read Coase (1937), The Nature of the Firm, from Economica N.S. 4.16 (Nov. 1937). 386-405.
Session 6: A Question of Identity.
Benj. R. Tucker (various/1897), selections from Instead of a Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism (HTML at fair-use.org):
Session 7: A Question of Activism.
Sharon Presley & Lynn Kinsky (1976), Government is Women’s Enemy, Association of Libertarian Feminists Discussion Paper (HTML at alf.org)
Lucinda Cisler (1970), Abortion Law Repeal (Sort Of): A Warning to Women, in Notes from the Second Year. (eBook at Duke University Libraries. Alternative HTML version at fair-use.org)
Charles Johnson (2011). Women and the Invisible Fist: How Violence Against Women Enforces the Unwritten Law of Patriarchy. There are several drafts of this paper, prepared for different audiences. I recommend reading the December 2010/March 2011 Molinari Society version (2010.1217-2), which is about 20pp in length and was prepared for audiences already somewhat familiar with libertarian writing.
Ellen Willis (1970). Women and the Myth of Consumerism, in Ramparts (June 1970). 13-16. (PDF at unz.org. Alternative HTML version at fair-use.org.)
Session 8: A Question of Ethos
Karl Hess (1969). The Death of Politics, from Playboy (March 1969). (HTML at fare.tunes.org)
Jason Lee Byas (2014). Toward an Anarchy of Production (Part I) from The New Leveller 1.1 and Toward an Anarchy of Production (Part II) from The New Leveller 1.2. (HTML at s4ss.org)
Emma Goldman (1910). Minorities versus Majorities, in Anarchism and Other Essays (1910/1917). (HTML at Berkeley Digital Library: The Emma Goldman Papers)
One of the
Five Pillars of left-wing market anarchism that Gary Chartier and I identify in the Introduction to Markets Not Capitalism is a commitment to
the radical possibilities of market social activism:
. . . [M]arket anarchists also see freed markets as a space not only for profit-driven commerce, but also as spaces for social experimentation and hard-driving grassroots activism. They envision “market forces” as including not only the pursuit of narrowly financial gain or maximizing returns to investors, but also the appeal of solidarity, mutuality and sustainability. “Market processes” can — and ought to — include conscious, coordinated efforts to raise consciousness, change economic behavior, and address issues of economic equality and social justice through nonviolent direct action.
— Introduction. 3.
Markets Not Capitalism (Autonomedia/Minor Compositions, 2011).
Here’s some more on that, thanks to the kind efforts of DFW Alliance of the Libertarian Left. This is some broad orientation on what it means and why it matters. The specifics I’ve talked about for quite a while here; it was also the topic of my recent talk at Libertopia. More on that soon, I hope. But for now: This clip is excerpted from a much longer interview with Jason Lee Byas and Grayson English at Liberty Minded / Speaking on Liberty. (Thanks, y’ALL!)
Transcript included below for folks with screen readers, et cetera.
Grayson English: I think it’s all very interesting, all this about thicker commitments, and different things that libertarians tend to ignore, and some of the more ethical concerns that go into these social issues. But I think there’s been a pretty devastating critique on Facebook about how left-libertarianism has nothing to say about ethics, and it’s basically just saying that whatever the market does, is good. I don’t know, I just think that seems somewhat problematic for this philosophy of thicker commitments, and indirect coercion. What do you think of that?
Jason Lee Byas: . . . The great agora that is Facebook, for philosophical symposiums in every thread, yeah …
R.G.: Yeah, I’ve definitely talked with some folks about this, on Facebook and elsewhere. I fear that Facebook is actually, like, systematically the worst possible medium for having involved discussions about this kind of stuff, for various reasons.
But, broadly what I’d say is this: left-libertarianism involves a claim that without state coercion, and without various forms of legal privilege, there are a bunch of forms of social and economic inequality, and social and economic privilege, that would tend to be systematically undermined — that would be much weaker than they are in society as it is. It doesn’t involve a claim that just freeing the market, and seeing whatever will happen, without your intervention, when markets are free, — is what either free-market anticapitalism in particular or what left-libertarianism is all about. That’s not the end of the day for either of those views.
And, so I think it is true, that if you get rid of — and it’s really important not to forget this; this is the reason we stress so much the importance of state monopoly in upholding capitalist privilege, for example — is not to suggest that, in a society freed of government intervention and regulation, that the freed market would automatically solve every social problem, every form of inequality, cancer, tooth decay, and that the seas would become the temperature and flavor of lemonade.
The specific claim is that there’s a bunch of stuff that would tend to sort of systematically get better just in virtue of kicking out the supports from institutions that are actively making it crappier. So there are a lot of forms of privilege that would tend to sort of sink and falter under their own weight, without the ongoing efforts of the state to subsidize them and to burn out competitors. But — whatever forms of social inequality, and whatever social evils — and there’s plenty that would remain, even if in a weaker form — are things that libertarians ought to take a direct hand in organizing nonviolent social confrontation against. Where these things don’t fall under their own weight, we have a responsibility to get together and push them over. And that means a serious commitment to grassroots community organizing and to social activism within the context of this freed market that we’re imagining.
That’s something I’ve always tried to emphasize in my work as very important — if you’re wondering who will stop the rich from running everything in a free society, part of the answer has to be that we will. And there are straightforward ways in which it’s connected with this commitment to the radical possibilities of freed market social activism. That is closely connected with seeing that being in favor of market relationships, is not the same thing as just kicking back and saying,Well, I don’t have to lift a finger because the market is going to take care of all my problems for me. . . . —
Jason Lee Byas:Market take the wheel!—
R.G.: — I mean market forces just are us; they’re people acting rationally in the world. We shouldn’t just be consumers of social conditions, but entrepreneurs of social conditions. That’s going to mean things like mutual aid associations forming up, fighting unions, neighborhood associations. It’s going to mean feminist activism, culture jamming, consciousness-raising, — all kinds of zaps and activism and building counter-institutions that are in the hands of ordinary folks, rather than in the hands of a socially or economically privileged bureaucracy. Any conception that takes market relationships *fully seriously,* is going to have to include social activism as an essential component of a flourishing free society. Not something that we’re bringing market relationships in instead of, because we don’t want to get our hands dirty with that stuff. It’s stuff that can, and should, and almost certainly will be happening in a free market society. And if you don’t see it happening, the solution is to be the change — to be the one that makes it happen.
One of the quickest and simplest ways to gloss what
Left-Libertarian, or the
Libertarian Left part of ALL, means, is just to say that we are for left-wing social ends through libertarian means. This inevitably involves a certain amount of oversimplification — does
through libertarian means just mean
by getting rid of government controls and letting social outcomes emerge spontaneously, or does it mean something more like
engaging in conscious activism and social organizing to encourage particular outcomes within the context of freed market and civil society? When we say
left-wing social ends, is that supposed to mean that the libertarian means are valued only as far as they seem likely get the left-wing goods, or are the non-invasive, anti-authoritarian means supposed to be side-constraints on ends that might possibly count as worthwhile, or do the
libertarian means really enter directly into the conception of
left-wing social ends that we’re supposed to be for? Do we ultimately have exactly the same sort of
social ends that progressives or Marxists or other state-leftists do? I’m a philosopher by training, and I’ve hardly ever met a conceptual distinction or analytical complication of a question that I didn’t like, so of course I think these are all good questions, and important ones to wrestle with. But at the end of the day, I think there are some pretty clear pre-analytical ideas about what
left might mean, and what
libertarian might mean, that make the formula a useful guide. If you’re wondering what puts the
Libertarian Left, when we’re not for an activist state and when we oppose the effectiveness or the worth of any governmental responses to social or economic inequality, the answer is not just going to be some opportunistic redefinition of
Left to meet our pre-existing political commitments or some obsolete French seating-chart. The answer is just going to be to point to some fairly straightforward understandings of what it is to value social justice, or what it is to be a Leftist — like this really admirable summary from Cornel West:
Being a leftist is a calling, not a career; it’s a vocation not a profession. It means you are concerned about structural violence, you are concerned about exploitation at the work place, you are concerned about institutionalized contempt against gay brothers and lesbian sisters, hatred against peoples of color, and the subordination of women. It means that you are willing to fight against, and to try to understand the sources of social misery at the structural and institutional levels, as well as at the existential and personal levels. That’s what it means to be a leftist; that’s why we choose to be certain kinds of human beings.
–Cornell West (February 2011),
A Message from Cornel West, for left forum
Again, there’s a certain amount here that’s oversimplified and a certain amount that’s left out. But it seems to me a good start. And an obvious point of contact and call to action for the Libertarian Left — for radical libertarians and radical leftists to take up, think through, express, and act on our concern about developing anti-authoritarian, counter-political, grassroots, consensual, activist alternatives against structural violence — against exploitation in the workplace — against multiple, interlocking and intersecting systems of interpersonal domination and social inequality — and to try understand the sources of social misery on multiple levels, and the intimate interplay between structural and institutional factors, diffuse cultural development, and interpersonal dynamics and existential experience. The
Left is in
Libertarian Left because when we work for liberation we Fight the Power. The
Libertarian is in
Libertarian Left because we know that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.
- GT 2009-06-12: In a freed market, who will who will stop markets from running riot and doing crazy things? And who will stop the rich and powerful from running roughshod over everyone else??
- GT 2008-02-25: I am shocked!–shocked!–to discover that politics is going on in here!
- Austro-Athenian Empire (2009-04-26): Why We Fight (the Power)
- In case you’re curious, my answers are: it means both of them, and the latter is quite as important as the former; it’s supposed to mean that they are both side-constraints on worthwhile ends and also — because social anti-authoritarianism is itself a left-wing commitment — itself one of the ends to be achieved; and no, at the end of the day we have a broad overlap on some goals and some distinct difference on others, but the differences that we have, we have because libertarian leftists are the more consistent and radical leftists, who don’t just drop our anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment analysis when it comes to professedly
Revolutionaryauthorities, establishments, parties, politicians, elites, or other monopolizations of social capital.↩
- Repeated here thanks to Marja Erwin, and repeated here because its status as a commonplace usage is I think vouched for by the approximately 5,271,902 times the quotation was re-posted across Tumblr.↩
- In context, West was trying to give an inspiring riff on some key themes, not to make a comprehensive statement of the definition of
Leftist.(Actually, in context, he was trying to raise money and attendance for the 2011 Left Forum. But the thematic riff was, if a means to that end, not a means only…)↩
<ul> <li><p><a href="http://drunkenatheist.com/2011/04/08/2b-7001b/">$2b < $700.1b. drunkenatheist, <cite>Drunkenatheist</cite> (2011-04-08)</a>. <q>From CNN: Washington (CNN) — Democrats and Republicans narrowly averted a partial shutdown of the federal government Friday night, agreeing on a budget deal and a short-term funding extension little more than an hour before the clock struck midnight and time ran out. The new funding extension, which cuts spending by...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2011-04-14.)</em></p></li> <li><p><a href="http://drunkenatheist.com/2011/04/11/excellent-aclu-piece-on-street-harassment/">Excellent ACLU piece on street harassment. drunkenatheist, <cite>Drunkenatheist</cite> (2011-04-11)</a>. <q>Today will be different. I first remember it happening when I was around 14. I was in high school. I lived in the country. I had to walk a quarter of a mile from where the bus dropped me off to home. Guys driving by would sometimes call stuff out...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2011-04-14.)</em></p></li> <li><p><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/14/wordfight-at-the-cpb-corral">Wordfight at the C.P.B. Corral. Jesse Walker, <cite>Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts.</cite> (2011-04-14)</a>. <q>When Congress reached its midnight budget deal last week, the finished product didn't include the GOP's measure barring federal funds for National Public Radio, let alone the party's earlier proposal to zero out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting entirely. (I told you so.) In the aftermath, over at Bloomberg Government,...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2011-04-14.)</em></p></li> <li><p><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2011/04/think-dialectically.html">Think Dialectically. Sheldon Richman, <cite>Free Association</cite> (2011-04-09)</a>. <q>The title of the post is the advice my old friend Chris Matthew Sciabarra would surely give about proposals to change or abolish Medicare and Medicaid. It means holding the full context at the front of one's mind. These programs certainly violate the rights of the people forced to finance...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2011-04-14.)</em></p></li> <li><p><a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1428">04/13/11 PHD comic: 'Three to five weeks' <cite>PHD Comics</cite> (2011-04-14)</a>. <q>Piled Higher & Deeper by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com title: "Three to five weeks" - originally published 4/13/2011 For the latest news in PHD Comics, CLICK HERE!</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2011-04-14.)</em></p></li> <li><p><a href="http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1939">dromiceiomimus, why was a big secret kept. <cite>Dinosaur Comics</cite> (2011-04-12)</a>. <q>archive - contact - sexy exciting merchandise - cute - search - about← previousApril 12th, 2011nextApril 12th, 2011: Today I am going to Montreal with Joey; we're going to be the two classiest dudes on the train; if you see on the news "BREAKING: TRAIN MEN: SO CLASSY" then watch...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2011-04-14.)</em></p></li> <li><p><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/15/today-in-new-york-times-navel">Today in <em>New York Times</em> Navel-Gazing. Jesse Walker, <cite>Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts.</cite> (2011-04-15)</a>. <q>From Ginia Bellafante's review of Game of Thrones, an upcoming HBO adaptation of a book by the fantasy writer George R.R. Martin: The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of [the show's sex] has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Friday 2011-04-15.)</em></p></li>