Benjamin Tucker: American Mutualist

  • Posted on: 22 April 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)
Benjamin Tucker: American Mutualist

Benjamin Tucker: American Mutualist

By Evans Press 2017

(In an article I made in 2009 titled 'Benjamin Tucker Individualist Libertarian Market Socialist' some of its definitions on Capitalism and Market Socialism were not very accurate and needed work. So I made a much more accurate updated article titled ‘Benjamin Tucker Individualist Libertarian Market Socialist Updated 2017’. This article ‘Benjamin Tucker: American Mutualist’ is the follow up article to the ‘Benjamin Tucker Individualist Libertarian Market Socialist Updated 2017’ article. So if you have not read that updated article, please read that one first.)

In an Individualist Mutualist market economy of Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, or Stephen Pearl Andrews employers can indeed pay themselves more money than their employees for equal time worked however even though they can pay themselves more money than their employees for equal time worked they are still Mutualists and not Capitalists. Why is this?

This is because it is not necessarily wages as such which determines if a market is capitalist or not but if the employees are paid enough to generally to repurchase the value of their labor on the market and if the employer actually does work in the business they own. In other words Capitalism is a market system with a subject theory of value which does not in general factor into account labor into the prices of wage labor or products so the employees are generally not paid the full value of their labor. In a Mutualist market system or socialist market system, the employees would be paid enough to repurchase the value they produce on the market and so receive the full value of their labor. (As should be noted the only way for the employees to have their full value reflected on the market is when there is equality of opportunity on the market. This is not possible under capitalism because are forced to accept low wages to survive. See Tuckers State Socialism and Anarchism.)1.

So markets do not equate Capitalism and markets can exist in both Capitalist subjective theory of value markets (where it does not factor labor into wage labor or the price of their products) or as a Mutualist labor theory of value (where markets that do indeed factor labor into the price of their wage labor or products.)

So when employees are paid enough to repurchase the general value they created on the market there is no economic exploitation (economic exploitation is also called surplus value) and so the employers are no longer capitalists due to the employer no longer being exploitive by not extracting surplus value from the employees and hence the employer becomes a worker who's wage as an employer is subject to the going rate on the market in their particular industry just like the employees wages are subject to the going rates on the markets of their particular industry. Therefore employers can indeed pay themselves more money than their employees for equal time worked if the current wage rate on the Mutualist market is determined so. The employer must actually work to earn a wage, they cannot simply own the business without doing any work. If they simply own the business without working and receive income from the business they are again extracting surplus value and would become capitalists. Surplus value means earning an income without working for it in a business. 2.

It is important to note that the Individualist Anarchism market Mutualism of Tucker, Warren, and Andrews and in fact any market socialist economy that is based on the labor theory of value must have equality of opportunity on the market.

For example:

In a capitalist economy the average going rate of a job on the market is distorted because workers are forced to accept lower wages just to survive. If the workers had the option to go into business for themselves with relative ease, most workers would not accept employers who offer low wages. Therefore wages would go up as employers would offer more to entice workers to work for them rather than the workers going into business for themselves. This way workers would be in position to dictate their own wages and the wages would reflect the true value of their occupation on the market. Employers that pay their workers less than that general value on the market of that occupation would be exploiting the worker.

The Libertarian Individualist Market Socialism (sometimes also called Individualist Mutualism) of Tucker and others made it a point to have equality of opportunity on the market otherwise exploitation on the market would still exist as stated in the example between a capitalist market and individualist mutualist market mentioned above.

Tucker's aim was to eliminate usury which is the result of un-equal markets based in the subjective theory of value of Capitalism.

This usury consisted of three main forms: Profit, interest, and rent which are considered forms of unearned income in the labor theory of value of Mutualism and Market Socialism. 3.

When Tucker spoke of profits he did Not mean the simple act of making money from a sale of products. Tucker meant Capitalist exploitive profits through the employer extracting surplus value from the employees. An example of this kind of profit is as follows:

In a capitalist economy the average going rate of a job on the market is distorted because workers are forced to accept lower wages just to survive. The money value that would have been the workers income if they were paid their full market value is the surplus value now pocketed by the employer. The actual value cannot be determined on a capitalist market however because workers are accepting wages just to survive. In a market where the workers needs are already met with equality of opportunity on the market, they can then be in a position to dictate their wages and the wages would then reflect their entire value.

The employers must actually work to receive a wage. Simply owing a business and not doing any work as an employer and making money from their employees would be another form of surplus value and exploitation. So the employer must actually work in the business they own to receive their wages in a non-exploitive manner. Ofcourse employers do not only pay themselves wages but they also receive money from the income of the company to cover costs of running the business and overhead costs. 4.

Non-Capitalist Profit in a very general sense is where surplus value is not made, in other words the money left over for the employer after the employer paid the overhead costs of running the business and after they pay their employees the total general value they produced on the market at the time, the left over money is their wage. Such non-exploitive profit is considered good by the Individualist Mutualists and is how a normal part of how an individualist market mutualist business operates and how the market mutualist economy functions in the Individualist Libertarian Market Socialism of Tucker, Warren, and Andrews ect ect. 5.

A fair market would be achieved according to Tucker through Mutual Banks offering cheap credit at interest less than 1 percent which were designed to cover only the cost of running the business of the mutual bank. (Ie. Overhead costs and wages ect) Therefore anyone in good standing could go into business for themselves and therefore would not offer to work for an employer that would pay them a wage less than the value they produce on the market. 6.

Tucker opposed rent because people who do not have land or must pay for land are the result of land monopoly which impoverishes many people because people must pay others to live on the land if they can afford it and they are more likely to spend time just trying to survive and are more likely to settle for wages less than their full value on the market simply to survive and pay the needs to live. With free land or 'occupancy and use' as Tucker stated, land would become much easier to access and poverty would be greatly reduced. 7.

How exactly can an individualist anarchist business with employers be applied into today’s economy?

The mutualist business can be run in the Individualist Anarchist way with employers by having everyone in the company (both employers and employees) vote on wages of both the wages of the employees and the wages of the employers. The jobs within the company that are the most stressful mentally or physically would be paid the most. This is the Labor Theory of Value or the 'Cost Principle' (which includes the mental and physical stress) of the theory of Josiah Warren. 8. If business is doing poorly for whatever reason and pay cuts were needed everyone in the company would vote on how much pay to cut. The only difference between the individualist model with employers and co-ops (ie Proudhon) is in the Individualist anarchist model the employers are not voted in or out like in the model of Proudhon. In either model there is no surplus value because the wage is decided by how difficult the work is and only people who work (add value) are paid and the employees being the majority in the company decide their wages themselves through voting (rather than letting the market do it with equality of opportunity on the market if they were in a individualist anarchist market) are by both the employer and employees voting on wages and by both actually doing their work they are being paid for; they have equality of opportunity to decide their whole wages depending on the physical and mental intensity and thus receive their entire product.*

Notes:

*It is my opinion the Individualist Anarchist J K Ingalls had the correct idea due to his belief that land should be of upmost importance along with eliminating the exploitation of labor because when people have their basic needs met through free land and shelter (and in my opinion society should give free food staples, electricity and other basics) so the need to survive is already taken care of. If the needs to survive are Not taken care of people will tend to settle for wages that pay them less than the value of their labor because they need to pay for the basics like food shelter ect just to live and the market would no longer have equality of opportunity on the market and hence usury. Once all their survival needs are met the market becomes one of equality of opportunity and naturally the labor values of their labor would reflect the prices on the market because people would not settle for working with employers who pay them less than their value of their labor. For more information on J.K. Ingalls see the book Men Against The State by Martin. However non-exploitive landlords who rent can exist in an Individualist Mutualist Society based on the cost principle. Within Capitalism tenants pay for a house based on how popular or how useful the house or place is. However in an Individualist Mutualist society based on the cost principle the price of the rent factors only the wear and tear of maintaining the house or place and the cost of insurance and the labor of the landlord in maintaining the house or place. Warren sates: Within Capitalism and the subjective theory of value: “Rents of land, buildings, ect., especially in cities, are based chiefly on the value to the occupants, and this depends on the degree of want or distress felt by the landless and houseless; the greater the distress, the higher the value and the price.” Within the Individualist Mutualist society: “The equitable rent of either would be the wear, insurance, ect., and the labor of making contracts and receiving the rents, all of which are different items of cost.” Warren, Josiah. Equitable Commerce. ULAN Press. USA 2017. Pp 46. By ‘cost’ Warren means the physical and mental labor along with the material costs in addition to the average going rate on the market are all factored into price.

References:

1. Tucker, Benjamin. Instead of a Book. Forgotten Books. 2012. Also please see: Marx, Karl. Capital Volume One. Penguin Classics. 1990. Kropotkin states: “…the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production…” Kropotkin, Peter., Anarchism (1910) Encyclopedia Britannica. And Alexander Berkman The Individualists and Mutualists maintain that liberty means “the right of every one to the product of his toil” Berkman, Alexander. The ABC of Anarchism. New York. Vanguard Press. 1929. Chapter 23 Non-Communist Anarchists. For Capitalism and the subjective theory of value please see: Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics. The Macmillan Company, London. 1930.

2. Tucker, Benjamin. Instead of a Book. Forgotten Books. 2012. Please also see: Marx, Karl. Capital Volumes 1 and 2.

3. Ibid

4. Ibid

5. “…it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get
nothing but that wage for their labor…” Tucker, Benjamin. Instead of a Book: By a Man too Busy to Write One. New York: Gordon Press. (1972) pp 5 and pp 475. Andrews, Stephen. Science of Society. Leopold Classic Library. USA (2016) pp 233.

6. Please see: State Socialism and Anarchism by Benjamin Tucker

7. Ibid.

8. Warren. Josiah. Equitable Commerce. ULAN Press. USA (2017) pp 46

category: 

Comments

A failed economic theory, that will never become more popular than it has become. It is popular among weirdoes because it is wacky nonsense, working about as good as a 9/11 conspiracy. Just as jet fuel can't melt steel beams, the ideas of Ben Tucker are founded on a flimsy basis, so overcooked as to be burnt. Do well anarchists and stay away from this drivel. It will poison your mind and waste what time you have on this Earth attempting to justify fantasy football economics with losers that have problems getting girlfriends.

For something to be failed it has to have at least been tried. Tucker's-and by extension Proudhon's-system is one of those alt economic systems that actually could work. Blockchain technology has made it that much closer to reality. I don't have a hard-on for the man's ideas the way someone like prorat or Kevin Carson does, but I'll certainly take his system over this one and then look to go beyond it and all mediating organization driven economic systems which is what all economic systems are anyway.

Its a bad idea and it failed. These type of contrived ideas are the kinds of garbage people get confused with real anarchism, like Bob Black, Max Stirner and Renzo Novatore. If you like these people, you won't like Ben Tucker. That's the line. Get on board or get lost.

Hold onto your butts. XD

First off, again, it didn't fail regardless of how you feel about it. I happen to like those thinkers you mentioned very much but they represent a raw form of anarchy more then anarchism. Anarchism was founded as a political economic worldview whether you like it or not. It's why I aspire towards anarchy and merely prefer anarchism to all the other filthy isms. Tucker's worldview is perfectly in keeping with anarchism on a bare minimal level.

Come on... NA anarchists are way too busy in low-wage non-skilled bullshit jobs to be wasting *precious time* developping mutualist networks of self-managed economy, DUH. Where they gonna get the drugs from anyways?

Ziggy, what does it mean to get beyond mediating organization driven economic systems, and what could that look like?

And other systems and that stem from reifications and organized apparatuses. I like to use the example of children being left to their own devices.

Please don't insult our Mexican and Canadian anarchist confrere's & companero's by lumping them in with Norte Americano's

I thought that included the Canada anarchists. As for the Mexican ones, I can't tell. Different culture over there.

I ( pro2rat) never had a hard-on for Tucker. If you have Proudhon you don't need Tucker.

Adding to my anon 20:52 post. Are you talking about disintermediation? Or something stronger than that, or am I missing the mark completely?

I thought it would be interesting to point out what Benjamin Tucker meant by the term rent regarding landlords and tenants. Tucker agreed with Josiah Warren on equitable non-exploitive landlord rent though Tucker did not call non-exploitive rent 'rent' but sale. Warren states “The equitable rent of either would be the wear, insurance, ect., and the labor of making contracts and receiving the rents, all of which are different items of cost.” Warren, Josiah. Equitable Commerce. ULAN Press. USA 2017. Pp 46. By ‘cost’ Warren means the physical and mental labor along with the material costs in addition to the average going rate on the market are all factored into price. Tucker states that he considers the term rent to mean usury or unearned income by a landlord. However if a landlord worked on their own land, then the tenant pays the landlord (a money amount covering the physical and mental labor as well as material costs according to the work done by the landlord) due to the damage and wear the tenant does on the land owned by the landlord that was worked on by the landlord then that is non-exploitive and thus not rent but sale. Tucker states: "If Edgeworth performs preparatory labor on a cotton field, the result of which would remain intact if the field lay idle, and that result is damaged by a tenant, the tenant ought to pay him for it on the basis of reward defined above...the transaction, nevertheless, is in the nature of a sale, and not a payment for a loan. Every sale is an exchange of labor, and the tenant simply pays money representing his own labor for the result of Edgeworth's labor which he (the tenant) has destroyed in appropriating it to his own use. If the tenant does not damage the result of Edgeworth's prepatory labor, then,.... this money, paid over and above all damage, if it does not bring equivalent ownership, is payment for use, usury, and in my terminology, rent... The difference bewteen us is just this. Edgeworth says that from tenant to landlord there is payment for damage, and this is just rent; and there is payment for use, and this is unjust rent. I say there is payment for damage, and this is indemnification or sale, and is just; and there is payment for use, and that is rent, and is unjust." Tucker, Benjamin. Instead of A Book. Forgotten Books. 2012. Pg 303.

Labor value makes a major error in assuming that all workers are equal in their physiological and libidinal demands. A self-regulatory system using measuring and sensing instruments combined with unregulated open bartering and reciprocating exchange units would naturally evolve over a short span of time if left to its own devices.

For anyone who does not know and is interested, the article Benjamin Tucker: American Mutualist Part 2: A Brief Introduction to the Freedoms in the Individualist Society by Nicholas Evans (2017) was posted here:

http://anarchistnews.org/content/benjamin-tucker-american-mutualist-part...

Some information from the article:

"....This article very briefly discusses the freedoms in the Individualist Mutualist society of Tucker, Warren, and Andrews.

Tucker's individualist society is based solely on contract so the associations or 'governments' in the individualist society could be any way people choose. The society would be organized in any way people wished and those who did not wish to take part would not have too. For example the society could be extremely democratic or extremely hierarchical, extremely religious or extremely atheist, or anything in between ect ect.. and those who disagreed would not have to live by the society rules as long as they do not forcefully impose their views on others. The only rule is everyone is to 'mind their own business' and the only time the voluntary defense associations (which are companies based on protecting the freedom of their customers as such voluntary defense associations that function like the police) would interfere in someone's life is if an individual or groups of people try to prevent people from living life as they see fit. 5....."

To be clear, Tucker did not advocate voting in businesses between the employers and employees in order for both the employers and employees to receive their natural wage. He only believed that with Mutual Banks people could could have the option to go into business for themselves so employers would raise their wages to entice workers to work for them and therefore both employers and employees would receive their natural whole wages. He would let the market decide the actual wage rates of the occupations on the market. See for instance his article State Socialism and Anarchism.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Human?
A
q
j
9
V
a
i
Enter the code without spaces.