[p2p-research] Case for economic democracy and against human rentals

Mon Aug 23 16:36:24 CEST 2010

Thank you Mike, I'm publishing this on the 27th!

Mike Leung:

"Abolish Human Rentals: Inalienable Rights Revived Mike Leung 8/17/10

Inalienable rights are universal non-transferable rights that arise from
intrinsic human properties and are independent of the laws, beliefs, and
customs of a society. They invalidate arrangements that seek to violate
those rights and thereby treat people as less than human. The application of
inalienable rights arguments transforms the standard discussion of worker
rights.

For example, when it comes to preventing worker abuse, both workplace
democracy and worker ownership have been demonstrated to be effective
solutions. In addition to the obvious benefits of workplace democracy and
worker ownership, such as better compensation, better working conditions,
job security, and fostering individual empowerment and growth, they lay the
foundation to address broader social concerns like economic disparity and
environmental sustainability. While there is some talk about the barriers
and policy prescriptions needed to implement workplace democracy and worker
ownership more widely in practice, what is rarely questioned is whether
there is anything fundamentally wrong with the employer-employee
relationship (human rental), the most significant impediment to worker
ownership and workplace democracy today. Can anything be said about
workplace democracy and worker ownership in terms of intrinsic workers’
rights?

Within the standard framework we can only asks which policies are most
effective, and hope the best solution wins. No choices can be forbidden,
only disfavored at a certain point in time. This framework must be
discarded.

The correct question is the validity of the standard employment contract,
which is a voluntary self rental in exchange for a salary or wage. This is
by far the most common and pervasive employment arrangement. The underlying
issue involves inalienable rights, the key anti-slavery argument, which has
continued application today. It renders the standard dialogue about jobs and
unemployment merely a diversion.

There is a time to address the effects of various policy decisions, but we
must first ask whether the economic relationships under consideration are
consistent with workers being human. A political governance analogy is
perhaps better understood. Are there some governing arrangements that are
inconsistent with citizens being people? And should those be banned
regardless of the efficiency or potential benefits of that system? For
example, a benevolent dictatorship is now understood to be incompatible with
personal sovereignty and thus is outlawed as a choice in a political
democracy. A democracy may be messy and inefficient and even fail at times
to fulfill its basic governing functions, but few today would use those
arguments in favor of a dictatorship that might provide tangible benefits
for the population. Certain choices such as selling (or renting) one’s vote
are banned because those transactions violate peoples’ inalienable rights.
Citizens are not allowed to transfer governing authority in a democracy,
even with consent. Governing authority can only be delegated, a crucial
distinction.

We now return to the question of workers’ rights. Is there something
particular about human labor that differentiates it from land, capital, and
machines? And are there certain economic relationships that are acceptable
for things but not people?

Slavery is a useful analogy. What is wrong with the ownership of people? Is
it merely that slavery is coercive and brutal, or is there something
inherently wrong with slavery such that it should be banned regardless of
the circumstances, even with a benevolent master? A common anti-slavery
argument was that the working conditions of slaves were unacceptable. But
inalienable rights provide a different answer: slavery under any conditions
was wrong. The framework of the debate was whether people were better off
owned (as slaves) since they were treated as a valuable investment, or
rented (employed) where they were overworked, abused, and discarded.
Inalienable rights arguments destroyed that framework. The voluntary self
sale into slavery is banned today, despite potentially positive benefits
such as food, shelter, and safety to the seller. Even in the presence of
homelessness and starvation, slavery is still prohibited. Inalienable rights
remove the issue of coercion or consent as the criteria for legitimacy.

The application of inalienable rights arguments equally undermines the
rental of humans. Today it would be outrageous to consider slavery a form of
productive employment. Similar views are required for human rentals as well.
The issue is not one of compensation, collective bargaining rights, or
working conditions. It applies equally to overly compensated CEOs of large
corporations as well as mistreated sweatshop laborers. The ideological
framework in which the rental of humans qualifies as jobs or employment must
be superseded by a discussion about inalienable rights.

We can easily state the reason for abolishing human rentals: it is
incompatible with workers being human. Specifically, the rental of humans
seeks to alienate the responsibility of workers for their actions, by
transferring financial gains and losses to a different party. And it seeks
to alienate workers’ decision making power on the job. Workers have
inalienable rights to both workplace democracy and worker ownership (bearing
profits or losses). Workers cannot alienate their decision making power on
the job or resign themselves to being ordered to produce. Governing power
can only be delegated, never alienated, even at work. Any boss or management
in a firm must be beholden to the workers’ decision making authority.
Workers cannot alienate responsibility for their collective actions,
financial or otherwise. The structure that incorporates workplace democracy
and worker ownership is the worker cooperative, whose members decide how the
business is run and own the enterprise. It is the manifestation of being
jointly self-employed.

The argument is not that slavery or human rentals do not exist in practice.
The argument is that the human sale or human rental contract fail to negate
the personhood of the slave or employee. Whatever abuse or treatment they
suffer, they are still human. People can only agree to cooperate in any
activity (even under compulsion) since humans cannot vacate responsibility
for their action. Society and the judicial system may pretend that people’s
cooperation (productive actions) qualifies as the transfer of their
responsibility and authority at work, thus fulfilling the human sales/rental
contract. But contracts which seek to transfer inalienable right can never
actually be fulfilled since the personhood of humans cannot be turned off as
required. The actions of production and transfer of money are incorrectly
taken to show that alienation has occurred to fulfill the contract,
something which is in fact impossible. The inconsistency is between what is
actually taking place and the legal and social view of events.

Discussion about the relative productivity of a human renting business
versus a worker owned, democratically managed business is simply a diversion
supported by the ideological framework. Inalienable rights arguments are not
affected by either result, and instead maintain that human rentals are
always illegitimate. Questioning the readiness of employees for democracy at
work is merely a tactic for delay. By analogy, some claimed slaves were
never ready to be freed since they didn’t have the skills to fend for
themselves. It was better for slaves to be protected by remaining under
their current status, or so the reasoning went. However, inalienable rights
arguments supported the immediate abolition of slavery.

The structure of the argument matters. Inalienable rights determine whether
various contracts and relationships are consistent with being human. The
standard framework compares various alternatives, whose legitimacy is
derived entirely from the achievement of some desired result. Since
different people have different preferences about what is desirable, and
fluctuating circumstances can change which policies best achieve those
desires, the standard framework is theoretically devoid of any absolute
prohibitions.

Stepping outside the doctrinal framework is never an easy task and is
frequently an uncomfortable and jarring experience. Once this is achieved,
one is faced with an unpleasant choice. One is either a hypocrite by
purchasing from and thus supporting human renting businesses, or a pariah
for living in accordance with one’s views by opposing the rental of humans.
The practical need for income also adds a level of difficulty for those
under a self rental contract. There is thus tremendous pressure to reject
inalienable rights, accept the diversion, or quickly forget certain
inconvenient facts and ideas. Those are the standard means of escape to
conformity. Despite the adversity, the inquiry must be encouraged, for these
are the essential ideas upon which real social progress depends."

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Mike Leung <leungms at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michel,
>
> I have attached an introductory abolish human rentals piece for your
> blog. Please feel free to format or edit it as you see fit. My
> apologies for the non open source attachment.
>
> I'll work on a Labor Theory of Property piece next.
>
> Mike :)
> _____________________________________________
> Abolish Human Rentals: Support Worker Cooperatives
> http://www.abolishhumanrentals.org/
>
> Worker Cooperative Credit Union Organizing Group (Unchartered)
> http://workercoopfcu.org/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > I'll present the credit coop tomorrow already on the blog (done)
> >
> > but, I would appreciate a series on human rentals, where the videos can
> be
> > embedded as extra's
> >
> > and a simpler explanation of the labor theory of property,
> >
> > there's no rush, but I would appreciate material between august 20 and 30
> in
> > particular,
> >
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Nicholas Roberts
> > <nicholas at themediasociety.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> hey michel
> >>
> >> we've experimented with some video of Mike's Abolish Human
> Rentals/Worker
> >> Cooperative Credit Union (intersection)
> >> http://permaculture.tv/mike-leung-worker-cooperative-credit-union/
> >> http://vimeo.com/12901862
> >> http://vimeo.com/12906472
> >> http://vimeo.com/12909846
> >>
> >> guess you and mike could could up a decent post, or perhaps a series
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> -N
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hi mike,
> >>>
> >>> I hope you don't mind my cc'ing in the community, so they also know
> about
> >>> your projects
> >>>
> >>> yes I discovered the human rentals site thanks to nicholas, and then
> >>> re-discovered ellerman again thanks to him and your work ...
> >>>
> >>> would you like to offer some blogpost on human rentals for our blog
> >>>
> >>> I would also love a piece on the labor theory of property, but I find
> >>> david's piece to difficult, so I need something more basic, (I already
> asked
> >>> Kevin Carson to look into it as well)
> >>>
> >>> Michel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Mike Leung <leungms at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Michel,
> >>>>
> >>>> Nicholas Roberts just tipped me off about your site and the case for
> >>>> economic democracy post:
> >>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Case_for_Economic_Democracy
> >>>>
> >>>> You may also be interested in the following website which is
> >>>> highlighting those arguments.
> >>>> http://www.abolishhumanrentals.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike Leung :)
> >>>> _____________________________________________
> >>>> Abolish Human Rentals: Support Worker Cooperatives
> >>>> http://www.abolishhumanrentals.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> Worker Cooperative Credit Union Organizing Group (Unchartered)
> >>>> http://workercoopfcu.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >>>
> >>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> >>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>>
> >>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> >>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >>>
> >>> Think tank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
> > Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100823/be1a6a1e/attachment.html>