CPE and MLL letter of libertarian solidarity
In France, more riots and protests over the CPE.
For those not familiar with it, the CPE is a new French law that allows employers to fire young workers without cause if they have been on the job less than two years.
On the face of it, that initially might not sound so unreasonable to us as Americans and market-oriented libertarians. The French are fighting mad about it, though, and with good reason. The overall economic environment in France is so thoroughly statist that they quite reasonably expect no tangible benefit from this one small so-called market reform — and quite probably a fair amount of pain.
Young people in France currently often have to live at home for several *years* while job hunting. The consolation that sustains them is that once they’re in, at least they have job security. We ought to be able to express sympathy for their plight and point towards a better way — a revolutionary way.
The CPE is technically market liberalization — but representative of perhaps the worst possible choice of priorities, I would counter. Such is the nature of political reformism — to subvert the market toward the interests of the political class and bring it into unjustified disrepute. It’s up to agorists to put forward the alternative — counter-economic revolution.
I’ve composed a letter of solidarity to the students and workers of France and have some initial signatories. We are presenting ourselves as a sample of self-identified MLL affiliated people.
Please sign by indicating you wish to be added as a signatory in the comments of this blog post.
Students and Workers of France,
Professor Roderick Long once wrote:
“When Marx called the French government ‘a joint-stock company for the exploitation of France�s national wealth’ on behalf of the bourgeois elite and at the expense of production and commerce (’Class Struggles in France’), he was only echoing what libertarians had been saying for decades.”
France and all other nation-states remain so today. You and we live in a world where freedom and economic opportunity exist only at the sufferance of a political class that allows us only some small amount of them for sake of their own convenience and take the rest from us by force and coercion for sake of their own parasitism.
Under such circumstances, state-sponsored market liberalization is a cruel joke. The legislation you protest and rebel against seeks only to increase the latitude given your overseers, while maintaining the overall restrictions on your own liberty that, if abolished, would empower you to seek your own prosperity. We believe you and we would be very good at that, mixing both cooperation and peaceful competition, if we were not slaves.
For those reasons, the signers of this letter offer their solidarity to you and present themselves as a sample of a small tendency known as the Movement of the Libertarian Left (MLL), advocates of revolutionary market anarchism or “agorism”.
It is not the place of others to tell you how to wage your own revolution against tyranny. We have some suggestions, though — a version of dual power strategy called “counter-economics”. We humbly recommend MLL founder Samuel Edward Konkin III’s small book on agorism, counter-economics, and revolution “The New Libertarian Manifesto” in hopes you may find it useful or inspirational. It is available free online at:
http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdfSigned,
The Movement of the Libertarian Left
Agora! Anarchy! Action!Brad Spangler
Diane Warth
Thomas L. Knapp
Adem Kupi
Wally Conger
J. Freeman Smith
Kevin Carson
M.D. MacKenzie
Roderick T. Long
Jeremy Weiland
M.R. Jarrell
Lady Aster Francesca
Per Bylund
Bruce Hobbs
Jeff Murphy
Matthew Claxton
Jorge Codina
William Gillis
Update: Next Left Notes is the unofficial news zine of the new SDS. NLN yesterday published the MLL solidarity lettter to French students and workers along with the English and French versions of the SDS solidarity letter.
Update II: Important followups to this post in blog posts and comments here, here, here, here, here, here (Spanish), here and here (as well as below).
Update III: In the interest of getting a more or less final version of this letter posted to Agorism.info, I plan to stop acting as a volunteer registrant of signatories for it after today. Comments for this blog post will remain open, though.
Share This
Beautiful! Please add my signature to the list.
Me too, please. (I especially like that guy you quote at the start.)
– Roderick T. Long
Mine as well. Thanks for taking the initiative on this one.
Chas adds his name to the list.
Guess you better add me to the list, Brad.Well done! Now if we can just find an American Lafayette to send to them….
“but representative of perhaps the worst possible choice of priorities”
What do priorities have to do with it? I don’t understand why libertarians would oppose an increase in liberty. Very odd. Please explain!
Kevin Carson addressed this objection rather well in his related post.
I don’t see that he answers the objection at all. If the reform is a step in the right direction (which it plainly is) it is perverse for libertarians to oppose it. Would you oppose a liberalisation of drug laws (such as for example the recent partial decriminalisation of cannabis possession in the UK) because it takes place within an overall statist framework? Surely not. So why is this any different? I can’t help but suspect that your opposition is grounded more in some misplaced sense of solidarity with leftists, than on principle.
I think you may be misunderstanding this because reformists see politics as attempting solely to influence, control or beg from the state. We’re not urging the French state to do anything except die. We’re urging the French students and workers to take their frustration with the CPE and turn it toward revolutionary libertarian ends — setting up their own free market and seizing their own total liberty.
I think he answers it rather well, extending the basics I provided in my post and in the letter itself.
The drawback of political reformism is that it sabotages itself. By begging the state to establish your liberty for you piece-meal, it brings liberty into disrepute as the state inevitably does so in such a manner as to benefit state allies. This ultimately reduces the popular support for liberty and puts liberty farther off. Thus, the CPE is by no means a step in the right direction and neither would be the mere repeal of the CPE and keeping French statism intact.
As I said above, I think you may be misunderstanding this because reformists see politics as attempting solely to influence, control or beg from the state. We’re not urging the French state to do anything except die. We’re urging the French students and workers to take their frustration with the CPE and turn it toward revolutionary libertarian ends — setting up their own free market and seizing their own total liberty.
Sorry, Brad, my last name is Weiland. Signing with only your first name makes one look like an ass. Sorry about that.
[...] At Brad Spangler’s blog there’s a great letter of libertarian solidarity with French protests against CPE which I’ve signed. I encourage you to lend your support in their own revolutionary struggle against further consolidation of state market power. [...]
Relax, Jeremy.
“We’re not urging the French state to do anything except die.”
You may disagree with a strategy of reformism, but that does not make it any the less perverse to oppose a liberty-enhancing reform which can only improve some people’s lives.
Roderick Long has already spelled out for you very precisely exactly why it’s NOT truly a liberty-enhancing reform here:
You know this because you responded to him, but WITHOUT actually engaging the point he raised:
By your own standard and through failure to answer his actual point, that repealing them in the wrong order can decrease liberty, you yourself have condemned the reformist position as anti-libertarian. You can’t credibly just contradict him without explaining why he’s wrong. It’s not my fault if you’re not aware of the implications of your own arguments.
A revolutionary strategy avoids the ethical pitfalls of reformism. There are so many ways to get the order wrong that the only realistic way to cut that Gordian Knot is by getting rid of everything all at once — revolution, anarchy, the building of a stateless society from below, self-liberation, etc.
I also explain my argument in fuller detail here.
“You can’t credibly just contradict him without explaining why he’s wrong. ”
In order to do so, I have to understand his argument. Hence my question at the end of my comment (which you omitted) “Who are A and B?”.
However, lets assume that the answer is that A are “the employers” and B are the “workers” (if the assumption is wrong no doubt I will be told).
The flaw in the whole argument is that labour laws do not privilege or benefit workers any more than do minimum wage laws. You know the arguments and I don’t need to spell them out. Overall, workers are worse off through such laws, even if a small subset (those with jobs when the laws are introduced) may benefit. The fact that the rioters do not realise this is simply a reflection of their economic illiteracy.
This is thus a clear case when the “order” of reform is simply irrelevant. The reform is an indisputable good by any measure. Nobody is made worse off and overall liberty and wealth are increased.
There may be cases where the order of things matters (the Paleo-libs would say that immigration is one of them); but I just cannot see how the elimination of laws restricting freedom of contract can fall into that category.
Please allow me to sign as well?
Lady Aster Francesca
left-libertarian, anarcha-feminist, sex worker rights activist
)(*)(
Welcome, counter-economist!
That would seem to be a very odd position to take, if I can assume you are a proponent of subjective value theory. One could very easily value a relatively strong assurance of job security once emplyment is finally obtained over a reform that is perceived to only slightly improve overall employment prospects inside a framework that will remain thoroughly statist overall.
Seriously, the French have their own domestic political discourse. They’re not unaware of the arguments for anemic market reforms that are blatantly skewed towards the plutocracy. They simply don’t buy them.
If I might draw an analogy — one can throw a ball relatively accurately without literally working one’s way through the ballisitics calculations involved. In much the same manner, I imagine the French have a pretty good idea of how much or how little they will benefit from this legislation as individuals — not very much.
Regardless of that, though, I believe you’re assuming that we’re contaminated with statist misconceptions. That would be incorrect, though. Read the letter carefully. All we’re saying is that if the French find the CPE and their overall circumstances frustrating, they should kill the state. Additionally, we expressed sympathy for why they might find it frustrating and provided a basic way to understand that frustration in a way that is compatible with libertarian principles.
I would like to emphasize that burning people’s property to protest this change im law is unjustified. I have seen nothing to indicate that the protesters are targeting the property only of their oppressors. Please correct me if I am wrong.
“if I can assume you are a proponent of subjective value theory”
Naturally
“That would seem to be a very odd position to take …One could very easily value a relatively strong assurance of job security once emplyment is finally obtained over a reform that is perceived to only slightly improve overall employment prospects inside a framework that will remain thoroughly statist overall.”
An even odder stance for a libertarian to take. This is not the place to re-invent the wheel, but the argument is precisely the same as the general libertarian objection to coercive intervention in freedom of contract. It is trite that those who already have a contract will benefit from the forcible third party imposition of favourable terms, those who do not will obtain a disbenefit; and overall, utility is reduced. It is though you were arguing on libertarian grounds against a reduction in rent control laws. Rothbard’s Power and Market is of course largely devoted to an analysis of the various ways in which coercive interventions in freedom of contract reduce liberty and welfare. Employment law is a paradigm case and any reductions in regulation of it will necessarily innure to the benefit of both would-be employers and would-be employees.
“Seriously, the French have their own domestic political discourse. They’re not unaware of the arguments for anemic market reforms that are blatantly skewed towards the plutocracy. They simply don’t buy them.”
If they do not “buy” them, it is because they do not understand them. Nor are the reforms “skewed towards the plutocracy” (whatever that may mean). They are simply reforms that marginally increase freedom of contract. They may be anemic, but that is not a reason to oppose them.
“If I might draw an analogy — one can throw a ball relatively accurately without literally working one’s way through the ballisitics calculations involved. In much the same manner, I imagine the French have a pretty good idea of how much or how little they will benefit from this legislation as individuals — not very much.”
See above. A failure to understand basic economics is endemic and sadly students are no exception.
“Regardless of that, though, I believe you’re assuming that we’re contaminated with statist misconceptions. That would be incorrect, though. Read the letter carefully. All we’re saying is that if the French find the CPE and their overall circumstances frustrating, they should kill the state”
I have re-read the letter. It does not merely express sympathy for victims of statism in some general sense. It expressly contends that the these particular reforms will not increase liberty:
“state-sponsored market liberalization is a cruel joke. The legislation you protest and rebel against seeks only to increase the latitude given your overseers, while maintaining the overall restrictions on your own liberty”
In this, the letter is simply wrong for the reasons I have set out above.
Julius
Again, you’re apparently missing the point that this isn’t an effort to shape state policy. We’re specifically urging them to kill the state if they find state policy frustrating.
If you’re going to cavalierly dismiss arguments as “reinventing the wheel” and “trite” without actually engaging them, then it’s not clear on what basis we can further discuss this.
To extend on my previous remark, you didn’t actually engage the point raised by re-iterating basic arguments for why benefit would accrue — because the actual point I made is that subjective valuation indicates there can be plenty of circumstances in which that benefit is overwhelmed by other factors. Given that, it’s important that any significant frustration with state policy be met with libertarians making the point that such frustrations could best be dealt with by far more robust market-oriented means.
Put my name on the letter too, though a libertarian socialist I remain. Agorism’s cool too.
Matthew Claxton
Thanks, Matthew!
“If you’re going to cavalierly dismiss arguments as “reinventing the wheel†and “trite†without actually engaging them, then it’s not clear on what basis we can further discuss this.”
What I meant was that everybody here presumably knows (and accepts) the economic arguments regarding the welfare benefits of freedom of contract, so there is no point boring everybody by repeating them! I am sorry if I did not make this clear.
Generally I agree we have taken the debate as far as we can. I was not at any stage debating your strategic ideas (I don’t know enough about them); merely disagreeing with your apparent view that this particular reform is a bad thing.
Regards
Julius
If at first I felt extremely hesitant to place my name near the implicit factionalism of the “Libertarian Left,†that brave Spanish Anarchist put me to shame. If he’s willing to break with the Syndicalists to support the blindingly obvious, I’ve got no right to shy away.
On this matter I feel you nailed the situation completely.
Consider me in solidarity with the MLL… in solidarity with the students and workers of France. Whatever that counts for. ;)
[...] That is why I was so impressed with how Adem Kupi captured perfectly what being a libertarian in this statist, corporatist world means - at least in terms with which I’m emotionally resonant. In the context of all the controversy about the libertarian Left’s supporti for the actions of the non-libertarian Left, Kupi points out an interesting undercurrent in the internal libertarian dialogue. And I think it informs any analysis of the general differences between the left and the right in approaching the political problem: [...]
[...] Of course, the MLL was there first. [...]